MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume V, Issue 585, 4 May 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, May 4. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M, and W. H. Pilliett, Esq., J.P.) Drunk and Disorderly.— An inebriate, for a first offence, was fined ss. Breach of the Peace. G. Humphries alias E. Price, was charged with committing a breach of the peace in view of a constable, John Davis was charged with a similar offence. Constable Reeve deposed that he arrested the prisoners for fighting in the street. The two prisoners were fighting together near the Warwick Hotel. Neither prisoner made any defence except that they were both drunk, and his Worship fined them 10s each. CriY Bye-Laws. The following fines were inflicted for breach of city bye-laws:— A. Culliford, ss; Thomas Preston, ss; Thomas Heskett, 5s ; R. Booth, ss. Furious Driving.— N. Welch was charged with furious driving on the Papanui road. The accused said that the horses shied at a. heap of stones, and he was unable to pull them up. The constable stated that the accused was urging his horses along for some distance. Fined 10s. Fighting in the Street.— George Tibbs was charged with fighting in the public street. This case was adjourned from last week. The inspector stated that Mr Diver, the only witness, had not attended. Hia Worship dismissed the case. Breach of Public House Ordinance.— J. 0. Sheppard was fined £5 for selling liquors during prohibited hours. W. F. Warner was fined £5 for a similar offence. Thomas Suirt was fined £5. Jesse Hall, £5. In these cases the offence was admitted. Unlicensed Vei i les. — Lewis Smirt was charged with acting as driver of a stage carriage without being licensed; fined 10s. Alfred Smith was charged with having an unlicensed vehicle plying for hire ; fined 10s. Robert Falloon, for acting as a driver of a stage carriage, without a license, was fined 10s. Unregistered Dogs. Walter Baker, William Callan, William Matthews, and Thomas Aldridge, were fined 20s each for having unregistered dogs. John Gordon was fined £3 for having three dogs unregistered. Furious Driving. John Harper and Thomas Shailer were charged on adjournment, with racing on the Kerry road with their licensed vehicles. Mr Bamford appeared for Harper, and Mr Thomas for Mr Roper, the complainant. Mr Bamford contended that there was no evidence against Haiper. His Worship conceded, and dismissed the case as against Harper. Mr Roper gave evidence of their trap having to be drawn right down on the side of the ro^j' and the defendant coming up at a and grazing the trap though draw- n down to the edge of the road. Had 1-Jr Roper not drawn into the grass on the ,-ide of tjie road, their trap would have been smashed. Francis Trew gave evidence as to Shailer endeavouring to p ass Harper at a gallop. He was surq 0 f this as he saw the defendant. The trap in which witness and Mr and Mrs Roper were, had been drawn down to the edge of the road as far as they could get it, and Shailer’s ’bus struck the trap a blow. For the defence Shailer called John Harper, who deposed that there was no racing between him and accused. They were travelling at the rate of about seven or eight miles an hour. It was a dark night, and Shailer had no lamps. They were not at all eager lo g« t first place. Witness would as soou be last as first, as he got passengers just as well. Mr Thomas addressed the Bench, contending that this was a thing which ought to be put a stop to, as racing along a road like the Ferry road was a most dangerous thiog. His Worship fined defendant 10s. A busi ve Language —lsabella Isherwood, a little girl, was charged with using abusive language to Mary Jeffs. The complainant stated that the little girl came to her place for water, which was refused, and she then called the complainant a number of bid nanus, and went off to Mrs Smart’s, next door, to get it. The c- mplainant followed her,and she again used abusive language,and then complainant flapped her faos . ° The defendant denied that she had used a y abusive language, but that both complainant and her husband beat her and her sistir. harles Jtffs deposed to the girl coming to ♦ heir place for water, which was refused. She then went over to Mrs Smart’s, and got 1 ho water, when the accused used abusive language, In defence the child stated that

she went over to Mrs Smart’s and got the water, when Mr and Mrs Jeff * came up, and upset the water, throwing the buckets after them, and beating the children. His Worship said that he should dismiss the case, but he would advise the defendant to be more careful in future, and not go on to Jeff's laud, and bridle her tongue. ASiJAULT.—George Green was charged with assaulting John Harper, The complainant having stated his case, the defendant applied, for an adjournment, in order to bring his witnesses. His Worship adjourned the case for a week. Peter Petersen was charged with assaulting Christina Ohristison on the 28th April. Mr Joynt appeared for the defendant, and Mr Slater for the plaintiff. The complainant deposed that on Friday she was passing by the accused’s house, when Peterson’s wife assaulted her with a towel and she retaliated by pulling her hair. After this Petersen met her and commenced abusing her husband. After this he commenced to beat her and knocked two of her teeth out. Mrs Petersen had been saying things about complainant and .she went to the house to speak to her about at. Id cross-examination by Mr Joynt the ■witness stated that she went to the house of Mrs Petersen to have a row about the lies she had booa telling about her. Mary Hamberg deposed to seeing the defendant strike complainant on the he fare. In crossexamination the witness said that she beard the defendant say he would like to hammer the complainant, and the complainant said that she bad been to Petersen’s house to tell Mrs Petersen not to make any mischief by her lies. The d'fendant was then sworn under the Evidence Amendment Act, 1875, and stated that the complainant came to him and told him that she had been to his house and struck his wife. He then ran after her and told her that if she had struck his wife he would strike her. A female witness who was in the house at the time of Mrs Ohristison coming to Petersen’s, deposed to the complainant coming in and striking Mrs Petersen. His Worship said there was no doubt there was a great deal of provocation given to the defendant but still that should not excuse him fors'rikiog the complainant. He thought that a slight fine would meet the circumstances of the case. The Bench would inflict a fine of 10s, each party paying their own costs. Samuel Dick was charged with having assaulted Richard Bennett at Woolston, Mr Slater appeared for the complainant. The complainant Stated that he was driving a cow belonging to defendant to the pound, when the defendant came up and violently assaulted him. Henry Bennett, son of complainant, deposed that the defendant first began the assault by knocking the complainant down. Other ■witnesses were called for the defence, whose testimony went to prove that there had been a fight between the two men, and that the defendant was the first to get hold of the complainant. The Bench fined defendant 40s, and witnesses expenses. Masters and Appbntice Act.—Henry Toomer, sen, Henry Toomer, jun, and Bphriam Toomer were summoned for not Raving instructed Thomas Virtue, their apprentice, in the branches of their business, by keeping him at the clicking, and not instructing him in the rivetting. Mr Joynt —Your Worship, I represent Virtue. [Laughter.] His Worship—You more frequently represent vice, I think, Mr Joynt. [Laughter.] Mr Garrick appeared for the Messrs Toomer. Thomas Virtue deposed to having worked at the clicking for some time. The articles of indenture staled that for the first two years he should ha kept to the clicking, and two years at rivetting, which had not baen done. Mary Virlu', the mother of the boy, deposed that she had called upon Messrs Toomer to ask them to carry out the articles. The Messrs Toomer had declined to teach the boy the rivetting, as they said they could not, and had told her that Dr Foster had said the articles of indentures were no good. Mr Garrick said the Messrs Toomer were quite prepared to carry out the indentures, but it was impossible to teach him the two branches in the four years. Mr Joynt said that it was all very well for the Messrs Toomer to say now in the third month of the third year that they were prepared to teach the boy rivetting. He would ask for an order of the Court now, and also that Messrs Toomer pay the costs. Henry Toomer, senr, deposed that they had offered the boy to keep him at the clicking, because it would be more to his interest, and they offered him an advance of wages. They alsa offered to give the boy 50s per week when he was out of his time ; he would then be about eighteen years of age. If the hoy and hia mother wanted to have him learnt rivetting, they would place him under the best man they had in their place, so that he might learn the rivetting properly. Henry Toomer, junr, also deposed to the willingness of the firm to learn the boy the rivetting branch, but they thought it much more to his interest to learn him the clicking as he would make more money. Mr Joynt submitted that the Bench, under the Act, -cou’d make an order. Mr Garrick contended that this section did not apply. They -were brought there under the 15th section, ■which provided for a penalty. His Worship scaid the Bench would inflict a fine of £l. ‘The fine to be handed over to the Orphanage.