MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 602, 24 May 1876, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

LYTTKLTOK. Tuesday, May 23, 1876, (Before W. Donald, Esq, R.M., and H. R Webb, Esq, J. P.) Weights and Measures.—The following persons were charged on the information of C. Walsh, inspector of weights and measures for the Ohristchurch anl Lyttelton district, with having incorrect and unstamped weights in their possession :—George Mackay, fined 203 ; Garforth and Lee, fined 50s ; M. A. Beverley, 20s; Barfield and Parsons, 20s; W. G. Judge, 50s ; W. Pitcaithley, 80s ; Biggs, 20s ; Inwood, 10s ; Smith, 20s ; J. S. Olliver, 40b ; Cole, 20s; Hawkins, 10s ; J. Webb, 40s ; J. Roberts, 40s ; Hardecke, 10s ; Lambert, 10s; Talbot and McClatchie, 10s. Costs being 4s in each case. KAIAPOI. Monday, May 22. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq, R.M.) Public House Act.—An extension of the liceuse was granted to B. Monk, Kaikainui hotel, on the occasion of the Cure Boating Club ball. Police Ordinance. —S. Holland, charged by inspector Barsham with leaving a horse team with dray unattended on Ohoka road, was fined 10s, and costs Is 6d, J. Satterly was also charged with leaving a horse with dray unattended at the railway station. The inspector stated he saw the horse starting away and caught it. Accused said the animal was becoming so stiff it could not run away if it tried. Fined 20s, and costs Is 6d.

Throwing Stones.—Four boya—and John McGifford, and Henry and Albert Knight—were charged with throwing stones and breaking windows in the Weßleyan schoolroom. The McQiffords admitted the offence, the Knights denied the charge. G. H. Black well stated that the trustees did not press the case. The parent of the McQiffords promised . to chastise his boys, and the Magistrate cautioned the lads and dismissed them. Larceny.—Fred East, in custody, arrested on warrant by Constable Haldane, was charged with entering the dwelling house of G. Kilgour on the 17th'and stealing £ll in notes, a watch, and sundry articles. On the application of the police, the case was remanded till Wednesday ; accused released on bail of £25. Tuesday, May 23. (Before J. Birch, Esq ) Larceny.—F. East, on remand, was charged with larceny of money, a watch and other articles from the dwelling of G. Kilgour Camside. The evidence of prosecutor, Mrs Kilgour, Mrs Jeffery, and another was given, when the magistrate said that as there was nothing to connect the accused with the robbery he would be dismissed. On Tuesday last the Resident Magistrate gave judgment in the case of G. Hutchinson v J. Djran, £3O damages detention of a horse, explaining that having carefully considered the evidence given at the Leithfield Court, the defendant must be held liable as bailee for the horse, and the judgment would be that he was to deliver the animal to plaintiff within one month, and pay £l, or failing that pay £2O and costs. RANGIORA. Tuesday, May 23. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq, R.M.; A. H. Cunningham, F. Courage, E. J. Lee, and S. Heywood, Bsqs.) Police Ordinance.—J. Betts was charged with setting a dog on a boy named Protheroe. It appeared the boy's father had destroyed the dog, and chastised the accused. The Bench dismissed the case. Civil Case.—B. Boyle v W. Gawne, £29 ; dishonored acceptance; re hearing. Mr Clark for defendant, residing in Dunedin, said plaintiff was stated to be a partner with defendant when the transaction took place. Plaintiff stated conclusively that such was not the case; judgment for plaintiff confirmed, and immediate execution ; costs allowed, 20s. R. Grimwood v James Boys, £8 10s ; no appearance of defendant; judgment for plaintiff. R. Herbertson's Trustees v W. Buss, £2O Is ; value of goods sent to defendant by bankrupt, making him a preferential creditor; Mr Stater for plaintiff ; the evidence showed that defendant held a bill for £27, due March 25th, that on 21st Herbertson sent a quantity of furniture to his sale room, and that on 24th Herbertson was declared insolvent; the claim was therefore for the value of the goods. It was shown the goods were sold at auction by defendant on April 7th. realising £l2 133. Mr Slater explained the case was brought under 76th section of the Insolvency Act, The Bencb, the Resident Magistrate said, wore divided on the question, and he would examine authorities, and give judgment at a future date. Same v Weir and Samson, £25; adjourned. S. Nelson v W. H. Haddrell, £lO, foi assault. Mr Clark for plaintiff. S. Nelson said—On 16th I took a ticket at for Christchurch ; at Raugiora the guard asked me to change train; I was standing on the platform alongside a man named Webber, when the defendant, a police constable, threw Webber into my face; I said, ". What are you doing ?" or something to that effect; I had one hand in my trousers pocket and a parcel of fruit in my other hand. He had hold of Webber, and let him go and he took hold of me and ran me off the platform, at the bottom giving me a shove; I never spoke to defendant or he to me, except he said, " Stand back,'' and he pushed me from the platform; I did not hear the defendant, but heard the station people call out " Stand back;" I asked a Mr Whitelaw what it was done for; I also said to< the defendant, " What was it done for," and he went away quite sheepish. By defendant—l was as near as I could say m the middle of the platform; there were people between Webber and me and the edge of the platform; I won't swear you did not say "Stand back;" at the same time you said "stard back" you pushed me down the platform; I did not notice a noise on the platform; I would not have bad the case

happen for £SO; the matter has caused me loss of rive days at lis a day; I have paid solicitor £1 17s, two summonses 16s, and in the previous cases I have paid the witnesses, aud estimate my expenses at £10; Rtanding at the head of the gangway 1 did not think I was in the way, and would have gone out of tba way if I had been requested to do so; 1 have made no demand previously for these damages. J. Webber gave similar evidence. The platform, in was not crowded at the time so as to require plaintiff being made to stand back, and " stand back" was bo oiten used by the station officials, that he took no notice of it. J. Bochello said there was a great crowd at the time he saw the defendant suddenly push plaintiff from the platform without any apparent cause. In defence, W. H. Haddrell, constable, stated On the evening in question the platform was crowded ; the station-master requested me to keep the people back ; when the train was at the points and coming in, I said "stand back" at this time ; I waq standing on the edge of the platform ; I put out my arms to keep the crowd back ; I did not notice Webber, but plaintiff said, " Don't push ua about; we are not children"; Tsaid, "stand back please," and he said " I wont ;" he pushed forward, and I told him if he persisted in that I should put him from the platform ; he came forward again, when I took him by the collar and arm and put him from the platform, using no more force than I would use in putting a man from a crowd, and in such a manner as not to allow him to assault mo 5 I told him them to remain off the platform till his train went. My reason for putting him from the platform was to carry out the order of the station master; but as witness Webber said, they hear "Stand back" so often that they become used to it, and it is really neces sary for the officials to keep the people back, and I had also to push the people back in the first instance for my own safety, as I was standing near the edge; the only damage I did was to break his collar button. P. Ponsonby, porter, Btated he heard the defendant call out stand back, and the crowd did so, only the plaintiff remaining forward; it was dangerous to be too near the edge of the platform, as the crowd behind was likely to push anyone in front on to the line in the way of a train ; plaintiff positively refused to keep back, and he thought defendant only did his duty in putting him back. J. B Gould, porter, said plaintiff did not stand back when requested, and the constable simply pur, him off th? platform ; if plaintiff had remained where he was, and a carriage had passed with its door open, it would have caught him. J. Torge, itation master, gave similar evidence, stating there was such a crowd he had to ask the constable to assist the officials in keeping the people back. The Bench retired a few minutes, and the Resident Magistrate, on return, stated the Bench had come to the conclusion that the assault complained of really took place, but regarding the damage the evidence was not so clear as to the amount which had been sustained, and as the aasaalt had been partly brought on by the conduct of the plaintiff, that would tend to lessen the amount claimed. The constable had no doubt lost his temper a little at the time, for it should be borne in mind that in the exercise of their duty constables should exercise patience aid selfcontrol. In this instance it was shown the plaintiff had been roughly handled. The Bench considered that the station officials should alone look after the passengers on the platform ; this view was concurred in by magistrates who were not present at the last court, when he made similar remarks ; and only in cases of disturbance the police should be asked to interfere. It was placing the police in a false position to ask them to act as defendant had done. The judgment of the Court was for plaintiff for 20s and costs, including solicitor's fee ; Richardson and Co. v S. H. Seager, £33, adjourned ; T. Dench v J. Thompson, £3 17s, defendant did not appear, judgment for plaintiff.