MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 609, 1 June 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, June 1. [BeVeG L. Mellish, Esq. R.M ] Drunkenness.—Margaret Maguire. alias McCallum, was fined 10s ; Henry Eden, 10s; and Patrick Patterson 20s, all having been found guilty of drunkenness and disorderly conduct. Miscellaneous. —The following persons were fined for offences of a miscellaneous character:—For allowiDg horses to S'iray, P. H. Brittan, ss; Charles Noall, for not having control over his horses, 10s; John Dienwrack and George HefFord, for plying for hire without a license, 10s ; Alexander Beattie, for leaving his cab without any person in attendance, 10s ; Daniel Howard, for a similar offence, 10s; William Brooks, for allowing cows to wander at large, 5s ; William Cooper, for having an unregistered dog 20s. J. H. Noading for a similar offence 20s. Frtdk. Pew, Joseph Broadley, Alfred Penny, and Henry Dixon were each fined in a similar amount, for having kept dogs above the age of three months, without having them registered. James McGrath was chargsd with conducting himself in a matter calculated to provoke a breach of the peace on the Stanmore road He was fined 10s. (At this stage Colonel Packe, Captain Clogstoun, and B. Westenra took their seats upon the Bench.) William Paush, for not having command over his horses was fined 10s. Breach of the Licensing Ordinance. —William Barrett, the licensee of the Devonshire Arms was charged with selling liquor during prohibited hours. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant, William Geddings deposed that he resided at Avondale, and on the 26th of March he and some others drove up in a trap to defendant's place and had something to drink. It was on a Sunday afternoon. They were all strangers to defendant, and in reply to a question from defendant, they stated that they were all traveller. Thomas Williams deposed that about the 26 th March he was with the last witness at the Devonshire Arms, where he had a drink. In answer to questions, they stated that they were travellers. They had driven in from a distance of four miles, and had previously walked out to the place from which they had driven into town. Constable Colls deposed that on the evening of the day in question there was a fight in the back yard of de fendant's place. There was a crowd of people in the yard. Witness went into the house, but saw no drinking. Other witnesses having been examined, the case was dismissed on the ground that defendant was a comparative stranger in the place. Indecent Exposure.—Charles Jeffs was charged with indecently exposing himself in a public thoroughfare. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the defendant. The evidence of the oomplaiuant showed that she was the wife of Mr Wain, who attended to the open ing and closing of the gates at Templeton. and that on the 6th of May the defendant ex posed himself to Mrs Wain after the train had passed, and as she was about to close the gates. This was corroborated by the complainant's daughter. Her husband was also called, and in answer to a question from Mr Williams denied that the luggage train had smashed through the fastened gates in consequouce of his wife's drmkeuness. It was true that the gates had been neglected, and the train had smashed through them, but it was not through his wife being drunk. She was not in the habit of drinking. Several witnesses were called on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant himself most solemnly swore that he had never seen Mrs Wain on the day in question. He denied distinctly that he had committed the offence imputed to him. Ultimately the case was adjourned for a week for the production of further evidence. Shooting in the Domain.—Henry Coe was charged with shooting in the domain with a pistol. Defendant said he belonged to the College, and shot in the College grounds. The Bench dismissed the case, and recommended that in future instead of bring, ing boys of the College to the Police Court, complaint should be made to the head master of the College. Trespass.—Jacob Wagner and Harry Feast were charged with having trespassed in pursuit of game upon the pro-

perty of Mr H. F. Gray, at Avonhead. Mr Joynt appeared on behalf of the defendant Wagner. Mr Gray deposed that on the 15th May, between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, he heard a guu fined, which he knew must have been fired in one of his paddocks, or in the road which divided them. On looking over the fence found two men on his property. Followed them, and heard one say " Look out,Xthere is a biid in the corner." Witness went to the one nearest nim, and said " I suppose you know you are trespassing." The man replied that they would not have come there but they were following up a bird which they had shot in the road. He then said that his name was Wagner, and hie friends name was Feast. Neither of the parties had any right to be on his land. By Mr Joynt—They were beating through two lengths of the turnips. They said in answer to me, that they thought the ground belonged to Mr Ryan, from whom he had permission to shoot. Feast may have to'd me that Wagner had shot' the bird from the road, and that he, not believing it, had come to look for it. They at once went off my land when spoken to. Ryan had land near my place. By defendant Feast—l don't think you asked me if the land was Ryan's. You said you did not know it was my land, and that you were sorry, and that the boy must have given Wagner the wrong boundary. I saw no birds shot at, and 1 saw no game. You were not carrying any game that I saw. Mr Joynt submitted that the case did not come within the Trespassing Act. No person could commit a treppass innocently—it must be a wilful act. The Bench considered a trespass had been proved. The fact of defendants thinking the ground belonged to Mr Ryan, and that they had permission to shoot upon it, c uld only beurgidin mi i Ration of penalty. The Bench was willing to give the defendants the benefit of everything that had been urged in their favour, but the fact of the trespass remained. They were fined 40s each. Another Case.—Mr Wagner was 'then further charged with trespassing on the same ground on the 23rd May. Mr Joynt again appeared for the defendant, the evidence in this caee showed that the defendant had shot at a bird on complainant's land, but bad not hit it. Two men were waiting for him outside the paddock in a buggy. They had all just come off Ryan's land. Mr Joynt again spoke on behalf of his client, but the Bench considered it was a bad case, because the same party had previously trespassed and been cautioned. It was clearly his duty to have ascertained where Ryan's boundary was. He waß perfectly well aware that he was not on Ryan's land, and there could not be a shad jw of doubt in the matter. The Bench did not see any reason why the full penalty should be mitigated, and the defendant would therefore be fined the sum of £2O. Another Case.—William Rrook;?was charged with unlawfully trespassing in pursuit of game, on the land of Arthur Charles Knight. There was do appearance of the complainant, and the defendant asked for his expenses. The case was ordered to stand over till two o'clock, to which time the Court then adjourned. William Br ok was called again at two o'clock, and on tV, application of the (omplainant, the case was adjourned for a week, costs to abide the event. Affiliation. —Henry Hebdenwas charged with having neglected to maintain an illegitimate chid, of which he was alleged to be the father. Mr Thomas appeared for Mr Hankins, the father of the young woman, the mother of the child, and Mr*Joyht for the defendant. Fifty pounds was offered to pettle the matter, but the father of the girl refused to accept the amount. The case was then dismissed, the information having been improperly issued LYTTELTON. (Before W. Donald, Esq, 8.M.) Drunk and Disorderly.—John Thompson, arrested by Constable Watt, was fined 10s, or in default 48 hours. Lunacy.—George Rice, who had been remanded from previous day for medical examination, was ordered to be seat to the Lunatic Asylum. Larceny.—John Lewis and Wm Blackmore, on remand, were charged with this offence. Constable Daly proved finding clothes stolen at Meller's boarding house. Wm Lennings, a seaman, stated the clothes taken had been stolen out of his chest. Carouagh, a seaman on board the Euterpe, saw Lewis going on shore on Tuesday morning with a bundle, he met the other prisoner at the end of the pier. Lewis was drunk that morning, Blackmore was also not sober, this was at 8 a.m. Tern, the Arabian, proved buying theclothesfor 4s 9d. The Bench sentenced John Lewis to three months' hard labour, but acquitted Blackmore, his complicity not being proved. Civil Case—Collector of Customs v G. M. Rapp, master of ship Natal Queen. Mr Duncan (Crown Prosecutor') appeared for the Collector of Customs; and Mr H. N. Nalderforthe defence. This was an information charging Captain Rapp that within the space of six months, on the voyage from Hobart Town to Lytteltoo, the principal boat was lumbered up with timber, and therefore not kept ready for use as required by the Merchant Shipping Act, Mr Duncan quoted section 293 of the Merchant Shipping Act in support of the prosecution. E. Chillman, actiDg tide surveyor, proved boarding the Natal Queen on her arrival from Hobart Town on the 19th May, and finding the long boat completely filled up with cargo. There were two other boats un board ; one was* the ship'h gig and the other a skiff j the latter was cargo. There were seven or eight passengers on board, as well as a crew of ten men. Thomas Snoswell, coxswain of Customs boat, gave corroborative evidence. Henry Cook, chief officer of Natal Queen, stated there were only two boats on hoard belonging to the ship, and that one, the long boat, was loaded up with shingles during the voyage. There was a skiff on board capable of carrying about two men, but it was cargo. The skiff was ready for use and was 28ft long. After addresses from the counsel the Bench dismissed the case, the prosecution not having proved that there were not boats on board ready for use, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. KAIAPOI (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq, R.M.) i Lunacy.—John Wheeler, who represented himself as having travelled overland from Dunedin, arrested by the police as not capable of taking care of himself, was cautioned and dismissed. Indecent Assault. —Louis Devine was charged with having, on 26th, indecently assaulted a female in Oliver's Northern Coach, on its route between Woodend and Ashley bridge, Inspector Barsham proved

the-wrest of accused. Mrs Herbert, ~D. Cameron and F. Manle gave evidence that accused, after l«aviug Woodecd, was alone with Mrs Herbert inside the coach. After its leaving Woodend he attempted to kiss her and take liberties, when she called out and was taken with her child on to the outside seat, the accused refusing to leave the coach. The Magistrate, observing that a wanton assault had been proved, said he could not accept the excuse made by accused that ho had been drinking, and instead of sending the case for trial, should deal with it in a summary way, by sentencing accused to two months' imprisonment with labor.

Larceny Act.—William Andrews, ar rested by Constable Haldane, was charged with attempting to pick a pocket at Monk's Kaikanui Hotel, on Saturday evening. The constable said he was sent for and accused given into custody. Accused shammed drunkenness at first, but sooa became rather lively. Witness, although in plain clothes, told him he was a constable. J. Simnionds stated he and a mate had just cashed a cheque, and he took his share, £3, in notes, which he crumpled up and put into his breastpocket, but subsequently took them out, and was holding the notes in his hand, when accused, who had been getting close to him, put his hand into witness's pocket, and a scene took place. B. Monk said he saw accused with his band in Simmond's pocket; he, witness, had aiso since missed a bottle of brandy, which he believed was found on accused. Witness ejected him, and accused feigned to be in a fit. The defence made by accused was that he had been drinking for some days. In reply to the Magistrate the inspector said the brandy could not be identified, and no case would be presented, j The Magistrate said he had no doubt of the accused's intentions when his hand was found in Simmonds' pocket, nor had he any doubts as to how he acquired the brandy, for persons seldom went in publichouses with a bottle of brandy already on hand. Ho was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment with labor. Alfred James Kent was charged with larceny of 26s at Smith's Courtenay Arms Hotel. Constable Haldane, who arrested accused, said be stated that he had not been at the hotel; he was sober, and had 18s 6d on him. Witness knew him to be an old offender. Eliza Ann Smith; wife of the licensee, said on Saturday last accused asked for bread and cheese. She left him with Andrews in in the bar, and hearing money being taken out of a glass, she saw accused coming from behind the bar. She demanded the money, when he gave up 265. She said be had taken more, when he gave up another shilling, and asked her to say nothing more about it. Both Kent and Andrews were sob3r. Accused said he was intoxicated, and admitted having taken the change, and also admitted having undergone a previous sentence of one month. The Magistrate sentenced him to three months' imprisonment with labor. Civil Cases.—F. S. Funston v Rubsn, £l3 3s 7d on judgment summons, order for payment £1 per month, or in default one month's imprisonment; J. Marshall v J. Stanton, £ls Bs, -judgment for plaintiff for £l3 6s and costs; J. Gifkin T Jno. Stanton, £1 15s, and Jno. Beharrell v J. Stanton, £2 3s 6d, no appearance of defendant, judgment for plaintiffs; William Kinley v James Kinley, £3O, adjourned for one week ; M. A. Greer v James Kinley, £l6 19a 6d, public house score. The Magistrate in giving judgment said ho had very little sympathy with either plaintiff or defendant, the former bad allowed the latter credit for more liquor than was necessary, and he could not encourage the publicans to keep scores. He should not give judgment for any liquor drank in the house, but when the clerk to the Bench had ascertained the totnl for sarsaparilla, lemonade, tobacco, and matches, and the bottles taken from the bouse, he would give judgment for that amount. Judgment was subsequently given for plaintiff, for £7 18s 3d and c)3ts. J. Burns v R. Ashworth, £ll 10s, judgment for plaintiff.