MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 656, 27 July 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, July 27. (Before G. L. Hellish, Esq, E.M) Drunk and Disorderly. —Margaret Dempsey, charged with drunkenness, was fined 40s and cab hire; E. Goodacre was fined 20s, and J. Cunningham in a similar amount. Larceny of a Dog.—J, Sherrard and F. McDonald, answered to their bail, charged on remand with the larceny of a dog belonging to F. G. Craddock, Leeston. Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. Sergeant Ramsay proved the arrest of Sherrard, who when arrested said tte charge of stealing the dog was absurd. It had followed his buggy from Southbridge, and when halfway between that place and Leeston he got out and tried to drive it back. Lucy Evelyn Wright, residing at Ellesmere House, Leeston, stated that about five or six weeks ago two men in a buggy came to the house for the purpose of selling some kind of fluid. They walked through the garden. Recognized the dog in Court as one belonging to Mr Cradock. It came into the house when the men were there. Saw them leave; saw them hold the gate open ; the dog did not go through it, but jumped through a gap in the fence. One man was in the buggy at the time, while the other was holding the gate open. Did not know whether the person was holding the gate open for the dog to go out or not. They then drove away, and the dog followed them down the road. By Mr Joynt—Had not seen Mr Cradock’s dog at the house before that day. Did not know how it came to the house, or whether it followed the men to'the house. Did not know whether it was a familiar sort of dog or not. It often followed Mr Cradock about with another one. The man stood at the gate for a few seconds, but could not say who he was. William Day stated that he is sometimes in the employ of Mr Loe, at Leeston. He was there on the 15th of June last. Saw two men drive up to the hotel in a buggy. Sherrard got out and the other remained in the trap. They came from the direction of Ellesmere House. Knew r the hitch in the Court to be Mr Cradock’s “ Judy,” Sherrard came into the bar and wanted to know how r far it was from Dunsaudel, and what sort of place it was. He (Sherrard) then want out to the other, who was remaining in the trap, and said “ VYe’ll let the bitch run.” The other said “No, yon had better keep her in the trap for a little while and then let her run.'’ They took the dog away with them, By Mr Joynt—By taking the dog away with them, he meant that the dog followed the trap when they drove away. Knew it was Cradock’s dog at the time, but didn’t say anything to them about it. The dog was running about W'hile Sherrard was in the house. He made no observation when the remark was made about putting the dog in the trap. The men spoke loud, when speaking to each other. The trap was an open one. Jbsep'h

1 1 - - Bailey, son of the hotel keeper at Dunsandel, stated that he remembered the 15th June last. Saw accused drive up in a buggy that afternoon. The dog in Court was similar to the one with them. When they left the dog was tied behind the trap. By Mr Joynt— Did not know what the dog was tied with. The string was only about a yard long. They stayed at the hotel for about threequarters of an hour. Did not notice the dog nnt.il they were going away. He (witness) took the buggy from the men when they drove up. Did not notice the dog then. Put the horse in again, but did not notice the dog at the time. P. G. Cradock stated that the bitch in Court belonged to him. Missed it on June 16th. When he last saw itlt had a registered collar on. The collar on it now was the same. It was registered in his name by Sergeant Bowler. Reported the matter to the police after he missed it. Had traced it as far as Dunsandel. The accused had no right to take the dog away. Valued it at £lO. The bitch would jump into a trap and follow anybody with a gun. Next saw the dog in Christchurch. By Mr Joynt —Had lent her to friends from time to time; valued her for breeding and sporting purposes. She was in the habit of making herself familiar with people she knows. Mr Joynt recalled the boy Bailey, who said the men stayed for three-quarters of an hour in the commercial room. Though he took the horse from them and put it in again, he did not notice the dog until they were going away. Could not say to what part of the buggy it was tied. The trap was a single seated one. To the best of his belief the dog in Court was the dog he saw tied, Mr Joynt called Henry McDonald, who stated that in the month of June he saw an advertisement in the Times about a dog, and was told by his brother to take the dog down to Mr Maxwell, at Warner’s. He did so, and Mr Maxwell told him that it was not the dog he had avertised for. His brother wanted to kick it out, but as he (witness) had taken a liking to it he would not turn it out. Elizabeth Dunham, servant at Mrs McDonald’s, remembered the dog following her brother home one night. He often kicked it out of the house, and she had heard him say he wished it had never followed him. The dog was often in the habit of following her when she went into the town. E, P. Cogan stated that he had resided at Mrs McDonald’s house. Saw the dog now in Court at the house one morning, remarked it was a wellbred animal, and asked whose it was. McDonald replied that it had followed him from Dunsandel, and had jumped into the buggy. On one occasion told .. McDonald there was an advertisement in the Times for a dog.bearing'a similar description to the one at the house. 'He (Mr McDonald) then told his younger brother to take it to Mr Mr Maxwell, whom he afterwards learnt was not the owner of the dog. Never saw it tied up, and it had followed him a little distance for several times until he bad driven it back. By Inspector Feast -Believed there was a pound offered for this dog advertised, but from wlut he knew of McDonald would not think that the offer of a reward would influence him in sending his brother with the dog. Miss Le Meazurier gave evidence of a dog similar to the one in Court having followed Mr Sherrard home one night, She shut the door and it went away. After Mr Joynt had addressed the Bench, he called P. M'Donald, one of the accused, who stated that the dog first followed them between Bouthbridge and Leeaton. Would swear positively that at Loe’s Hotel there was no such conversation at the Hotel as stated by one of the witnesses. At Dunsandel the dog was in the dining-room of the Hotel, and running about all the time they stayed there. It jumped into the buggy once and Sherrard after a little time kicked it out. Would swear that the dog was never tied at all, and would also swear that they did not drive away from the Selwyn Hotel with the dog in the buggy and that the dog did not ride any portion of the distrnce from Dunsandel to Christchurch. The dog followed him home that night, and against his wish remained at the house since. When he heard that a similar dog had been advertised for he sent his brother down with it. The dog was of no value to him, and he would not take it as a gift, fcherrard was also examined, and gave similar evidence to that given by McDonald. He would swear distinctly that the dog was never tied to the buggy during the journey, nor did the conversation take place at Loe’s hotel, as stated by one of the witnesses. He had not seen the dog from that day to this. Inspector Feast asked for an adjournment, as he could produce other evidence to show that the dog was in the buggy between Dunsandel and Christchurch. After some remarks from Mr Joynt, his,Worship said that as the accused were not kept in custody, it would certainly be better for them that their statements were proved to be correct. The case would be adjourned until Thursday next, defendants to be admitted to bail in the same amount as formerly. Horses and Cattle at Large. —For permitting horses and cattle to wander, the following persons were each finediSs :—W, A. Herbert, Tho?. Gordon, W. A. Merryman, and Alexander Sharpe,

Obstructing Cathedral Square Reuben' Ogden was charged on summons with obstructing Cathedral square with his spring cart. Mr Cowlishaw appeared for defendant. Sergeant Hughes stated that on June 24th, defendant obstructed the thoroughfare by selling goods near the tank of Cathedral square, between the tank and the Cathedral. There was a large crowd about him at the time which caused inconvenience to passers by. In reply to Mr Cowlishaw, Inspector Buckley said the information was laid under clause I of bye-law 12. Mr Cowlishaw contended that no action could lie, as according to the evidence his client was not obstructing a roadway, but had his cart on the square, which was private property, originally vested in the Church Property Trustees for cathedral purposes, and portion of which had since been vested in the Superintendent Before his client could be convicted it would have to bo shown that the spot the cart was placed on was dedicated for and used as a thoroughfare for passengers and carts. Mr Cowlishaw here read from Canterbury Ordinances the particulars of the land known as Cathedral square originally vested in the Church Property Trustees. Assuming the byelaw to be • good (and be very much doubted it to be so, and would be prepared to test its validity), this piece of land was not a thoroughfare within its meaning, and this the City Council had shown by fencing it in, treating it as a private street or private land, tacitly assuming the right of title. Inspector Buckley observed that if the validity of, the bye law was going to be argued, it would be as well to adjourn the

case to see whether the Council would decide going on with it, and having their solicitor present. His Worship said that as this piece of land was now fenced in, why go on further with the case; cui bono, jlf of course it was desired to show that that this piece of land was not a thoroughfare, then a test case might be again raised. After farther remarks from Mr Cowlishaw, his Worship said he would let the matter stand adjourned for a week. A similar case against Albert Chatband was also adjourned for a week, LYTTELTON. Thursday, July 27. (Before W, Donald, Esq, R.M.) Drunkenness. —Robert Smith and George Anderson were each fined 10s for this offence, or in default forty-eight hours. Drunkenness and Illegally on Premises.—David Grey, arrested by Constable Devine, accused of this offence, was dismissed with a caution. Civil Cases. —Lyttelton Borough Council v John Pope, junr, claim 265; Same v J. N. Priest, claim 22s ; Same v G. Messiter, claim 28s. Judgment in all these cases was given for the plaintiffs with costs.