MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 579, 27 April 1876, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, April 27. [Before G. L. Mellish, Ji’sq.,R.M.] Drunk and Disorderly. —Two inebriates were punished for this offence. Forgery. —Allan Wright was brought up on remand, charged with forging a bank receipt for £2O. Mr Thomas appeared for the prisoner, and cross-examined prosecutor at considerable length, from which it appeared that both prosecutor and prisoner were ■drinking about town together. The Bench said it had made up its mind that it was a case for a jury, and the prisoner was fully ■committed for trial, bail being taken, himself in the sum of £IOO, and two sureties for £SO •each.

Miscellaneous. —Detective Bettinglon was charged with allowing a horse to wander at large; the defendant stated that the horse had been tethered, but had been loosened by pome one ; fined ss. Thomas Stevens was fined 5s for a similar offence; also T. J. Ktubberfied was fi .ed 10 >, and C. O’Conner for allowing cows to wander at large was fined 5s ; John C. Corr, for obstructing the footpath, was dismissed, it being proved that he was not to blame. Robert Filloon, for a similar offence, was fired ss. Albert Brown, for not being in attendance on a cab, was fined ss. Thomas Hazard, driver of a hackney carriage, for not displaying the usual fares, was fined 10s ; John Brown, for a similar offence, was fined 10s; Ralph Tregauzle was fined 5s for neglecting to burn a light upon his cab after dark; Robt Habney was charged with carrying loaded arras through Hagley park. The defendant was a lad about fourteen years old, and his father appealed on his behalf; case dismissed. William Henry Porter and James Shand were charged with a similar offence; defendants said they were returning from shooting, and were not aware of the regulations; case dismissed. Matthew Goodyear, charged with plying for hire on the railway stand, was fined 10s. Wm Furness and Alex Foreman were charged with assaulting Mary Waine. The case had been adjourned in order that defendants might bring witnesses. Evidence having been given, the dtfendants were each fined 10s and ordered to pay costs. The defendant Foreman gave notice of appeal. Matthew Henderson was charged with obtaining the sum of £1 by false pretences from. Stephen Curd. Mr Thomas appeared for the complainant, and Mr Garrick for the defence. Prosecutor said he paid the defendant PA, and promised him £4 more if he got him a billet on the Canterbury line. Defendant was in one of the under engineer’s offices. The pound was paid about eighteen month’s ago. Witness was working at ballast work at the time. Defendant said there was a man who rung the bell, and as he was drinking he would get him out and put complainant in, and that he knew he could get it for him. At this stage of the proceedings Mr Thomas said he would withdraw the charge, as it could not be sustained. It could only be a case for a civil court. Mr Garrick •said that such a charge ought never to have been brought. It seemed to him that any kind of cases could be now taken up. He was beginning to get ashamed of his profession. Mr Thomas protested against such language being used. He had not had the -case in°hand five minutes, and he was surprised at the remarks coming from such a .quarter. The matter then dropped. WilJiam Edward Timbey and Joseph Timbey •were charged with assaulting Rosa T.mbey, The case appeared to be b, family squabble, jnolhers’-in-law, fathers’-in law, and female cousens being particularly mixed up m it Several witnesses were examined, one ot whom (the moth( r in-law), on being put into the box, went into a kind of faint, and had to be removed. Defendants were each fined 10s —John Harper and Thomas Sbaler were charged with furious driving on the Ferry road. From the evidence given, it appeared that the defendants drove rival ’busses, and were the terror of the neighborhood. Ihe case was adjourned for a week.—Mary Shaw ■was charged by Margaret Maguire, for using abusive language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Defendant said that plaintiff was beneath her notice, and there and then commenced to give the plaintiff a very bad character, half hinting that she was in fhe habit of purloining defendant’s turkeys, and other-vise making herself oh noxious. The two women then commenced a squabble in Court, which was quickly stopped by the Court. Case dismissed.