MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 703, 20 September 1876, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH, Wednesday, September 20. (Before G, L. Hellish, Esq, R.M.) Drunk and Disorderly.— John Jones, charged with being drunk at the railway station, was fined 10s and cab hire. Jacob Cox, for drunkenness, was fined 20s. An inebriate who appeared for the first time was fined ss. George Hart, arrested for drunkenness, and whom it was proved had assaulted the guard of the last up train from Ashburton the previous evening, was fined 60s. Vagrancy.— Peter Roraolus, alias Charles Brown, who had been arrested in a stack of hay early that morning in the Park, was, on the application of Inspector Feast, remanded until Thursday. Larceny of Tools, &c —Charles Thompson was charged on remand with the larceny of a quantity of building materials, tools, ice, the property of Messrs Marshall and Buckley. Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. Detective Bcttington stated that he went to the premises of accused on Saturday last, accompanied by the prosecutors, Messrs Marshall and Buckley. Both those persona pointed out as belonging to them a cramp, a boring machine, two floor dogs, quantity of nails, some pieces of lead, two large pieces of timber, a window-sash, and a number of boards. Witness took possession of them by virtue of the search warrant produced, and arrested the accused. He (accused) told witness he was a partner, and that Buckley and Marshall had paid the cartage of the articles to his place. The timber was now at the police depot, and the ironwork was at present outside the court. In cross-examination witness said t:.e found the long cramp in the workshop, the other cramps were in accused’s house. Some of the timber was in the yard, another portion in the workshop, and the timber mouldings in a garret stuck through the roof. Buckley and Marshall told witness that the workshop belonged to them and to the accused. The greater part of the timber was in this shop. Buckley and his partner did not say to whom the yard belonged. Accused’s house was in the same yard as the workshop. Re-examined : Witness simply executed the search warrant when he went to the premises, and only took possession of what was pointed out to him by Marshall and Buckley. G. S. Marshall called, stated that the name of hia partner was Alfred Buckley, and the name of the firm Buckley and Marshall, trading as builders. Remembered going to accused’s premises on the last Saturday with the previous witness. Witness helped to take possession of a number of tools and a quantity of material—[The witness here described them] —which he found there, and put on one side to be carted away, Some of these things had been taken from the Catholic Chapel. Witness also took possession of some other timber which was delivered to accused to be worked up, and which he afterwards refused to give up. On Monday last witness went to W. Thorne’s place at Woolston and took possession of a machine which accused had made out of a part of the timber belonging to witness and his firm. A portion of this property was at present outside the Court, and some at the police depot. All the articles belonged to Buckley and Marshall. Accused had not the slightest right to have them in his possession. The carpenter’s cramp, floor dogs, and boring machine were used at the work done at the Catholic Chapel. The two large pieces of timber were also at that job. The timber witness took from Mr Thorne’s was in witness’s possession at Davidson’s saw mills in May last. Accused had no authority to dispose of any of this timber. To the Bench —Accused never paid for any of this particular timber, nor did he ever contribute anything towards purchasing the tools. The floor clogs were borrowed from MrNaahelski. Valued the lot at about £20. ; In examination, witness said he had laid the information that accused had carried these things away, and he was prepared to swear that he had stolen the two pieces of timber found at Thorne’s, and he was also morally certain that some of the other things had been stolen, Thorne had purchased the two pieces of timber, which were six feet in length, for Is 6d. Witness had sent them to Davidson’s mill to be cut up for the Catholic Chapel job. Witness’s workshop had been built about six weeks on accused’s land, and was doss to his house. Witness did not pay anything for the use of the land. Witness was a baker by trade. Buckley was a carpenter, Accused had been foreman to the firm for some m'Bihs. Witness and Buckley got 5 per cent of the gross receipts from contracts for the use of their money, and then accused took one half, the balance being divided between witness and his partner. Witness asked accused for the tools and his stuff which had been sent to his place, and accused told him that if he took them off the ground he would put him into the loek-up. Accused also told witness that he would not give up the timber and tools until he was squared up with. By this accused meant that he wanted to be settled with for bin share of the Catholic Chapel job, Green’s house, Claik’s house, and the Organ Chamber at Avonside Church. Accused did not complain of witness allowing the money owing to him to accumulate. Accused, in addition to the percentage, was to get 13s a day wages, and witness and his partner 10s a day each. Witness told accused that he would certainly not settle up with him until he had possession of all his stuff. Witness took advice on the matter and then laid the information. Did not think that was the easiest way ol squaring up. Witness had settled up with accused on two or three occasions. Accused had a quantity of materials from the .firm, which had been charged against him. The signatures to the agreement produced, under which accused was working with the firm, were those of witness and his partner. Witness paid for the cartage of the materials and tools from the Catholic Chapel to accused’s place. Those things ought to have been carted to Buckley’s place on the south belt, and not to accused’s. Did not know who

ordered them to be sent there. Inspector Feast told bis Worship that after hearing the evidence given by this witness, he saw that the charge of larceny could not be sustained. Marshall had taken legal advice before he laid the information, and had the police been aware of the circumstances they would not have advised an information being laid. His Worship said the charge would be dismissed. On the application of Mr Joynt his Worship said the tools and materials might be handed over to Mr Thompson, with the exception of those which it was shown had been borrowed from Mr Nashelaki, and these he supposed defendant would not care to retain.

LYTTELTON. Wednesday, September 20, [Before W. Donald, Esq., 11.M.] Assault. Schelka was accused by Samuel Hall with violently assaulting him and setting dogs on to him, at Governor’s Bay, on Sunday last, the 17th instant. Mr W. H. Nalder appeared for the complainant. Samuel Hall, the complainant, stated that at half-past nine or ten o’clock on the morning of Sunday he heard some dogs barking, and saw defendant dogging his cow. He called out, and, when within fifty paces, defendant threw a stone at him. He tried to speak to the defendant, hut was attacked by him. They rolled over,defendantundcr, and Schelka then called out to his dogs—“ Catch him ; catch him.” They then attacked complainant and bit him ; defendant’s little boy was also hitting him with a stick. Complainant tried to get away, but could not for some time, but at last managed to reach the road, bitten all over his legs and thighs, and his clothes, which consisted of thick tweed trousers and knitted draws, shirt and singlet, torn to pieces (clothes produced). Complainant had to be brought into town for medical assistance. The cattle were trespassing on Miss Hanck’s land. Dr McDonald testified that complainant had come to him on Sunday night last. There were such wounds on his legs as might be caused by the bite of a dog. The man was in such a dangerous state on Sunday night that he would not allow him to go home. Frank Newton called, said he heard Schelka setting the dogs on to Hall on Sunday morning. When Hall came on the road he was bleeding a little from the head, and his clothes was much torn. Frances Snooks deposed that on Sunday she saw Hall and Schelka talking, and Schelka hit Hall and set the dogs on him. Hall cried out “Murder,” and “Take away the dogs.” The German struck Hall first, and then they both closed and fell down. Max Hanck stated Hall had permission to run his cattle on her land, which joined Schelka’s, no fence dividing it. For the defence, Mrs Schelka sworn, said that Hall knocked down Schelka first, and said “ I’ll give it to you you old beggar for driving the cattle off the land,” The dogs were not set on to Hall, but attacked him after he threw a stick at one. Wilhelm Schelka, a child ten years old, gave some very contradictory evidence. Complainant recalled denied having struck the dog first, and said his cattle did occasionally stray on defendants land. Accused was fined £2, Court coats 12s 6d, solicitor’s fee 2ls, witnesses expenses 19s 6d, interpreter 10s 6d, medical expenses £2 2s ; the Bench commenting severely on defendant’s wife and child giving such contradictory evidence.