MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 704, 21 September 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, September 21. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq, R.M., and W. Deamer, Esq, J.P.] Vagrancy. —Peter Romolus, brought up on remand, was discharged. His Worship gave an order that accused, who seemed very feeble, should be admitted to the institution at Selwyn, to remain there until he got better, if he behaved himself. Wife Desertion. Charles Coles was brought up on warrant, charged with having deserted his wife, Mary Coles. Accused had been arrested at Wellington on this charge. Inspector Buckley told the Bench that the man did not by any means answer to the description of the man named in the warrant. Mrs Coles, called, stated that her husband had deserted her for some time past. The man in Court was not her husband. In reply to the Bench, Coles said that he was married in October, 1875, and had been living at Kaiwarra, Wellington, since that time. His wife had only been confined three days since, and he did not knoiv whether she was dead or alive. He had been arrested there at three o’clock on Saturday last, and brought down to Christchurch. It was a very hard case, and he had not sixpence in his pocket to take him back again. His Worship told him he was extremely sorry that the mistake should have occurred. He (accused) would he discharged, and arrangements would be made to send him back to Wellington. Larceny. —W. R. Jones, who had been arrested at Rangiora, was charged with having stolen an overcoat from the Central Hotel belonging to a lodger, and valued at £2. Accused had afterwards pledged the coat at Davis’s pawnshop. Sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor. Breach of Public-house Ordinance. — Mary Martin was charged with keeping open and selling drink in her licensed house, the Black Horse Hotel, Addington, on 10th September. Another information was laid laid against defendant for supplying drink on same date to a man while in a state of intoxication. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for defendant, and admitted that drink was supplied that day. His Worship inflicted a fine of £5 on this information. The charge of supplying liquor to a drunken man was then heard. William Andrews stated that he was in defendant’s house on Sunday, 10th inst. He had been drinking before then, and went with some other men to the Black Horse Hotel, where he had some brandy. Sir Cracroft Wilson gave evidence of driving on the road to Cashmere that day, and saw three of his men on the road, two of them in a state of intoxication—Andrews beastly so. He had to give instructions for a spring cart to be sent to carry them to the homestead. A witness named Lyons stated that he met Andrews and Kidd on that Sunday, and ou being asked accompanied them to the Black Horse Hotel, where he had three nobblers of brandy. Kidd and Andrews looked as if they had been drinking when he met them. Mr Fuller, son-in-law of defendant, slated that he was in the bar when the men came in. They seemed to be perfectly sober, and both came in and went out quietly. It was about 2 o’clock when they came in, and they only remained there for a few minutes. He only served them with a drink each. His Worship said that as the men through remaining quiet might have deceived the defendant, he would give him the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss that information. Horses and Cattle at Large.— For . ermitting horses and cattle to wander at U'ge, the following persons were each fined 5s Richard Bell, James Campbell, Benjamin Hale, Hugh Knyvett, James Corbett, and William Brown.

Miscellaneous Offences. For obstructing a public thoroughfare, W. Allen was fined 10s. James Topping, for driving a cow

on the Whately road daring prohibited hours, was fined 10s, William Harris, charged with riding on a footpath, was fined 10s, An information against William Murray, L.incoln, for being absent from bis horse and veniole, was dismissed, as the wrong person had been summoned. For driving without sufficient reins. Wm. Hartouwas fined 10s.

Breach of Public House Ordinance.— W. F, Warner was summoned for keeping open and selling drink in his licensed house, the Commercial Hotel, on sth September. Sergeant Beck stated that about a quarter' past twelve o’clock on the morning of that dace he was informed that a breach of the Ordinance was being committed inside the hotel. Witness was admitted into the house by the barman, and in a parlor at the back of the bar he saw two persons, one a lodger, and the other a man named George Belcher who was not drinking, but admitted that he had had drink. Charles Anderson, called, stated that ho spoke to the sergeant that night, bnt did not remember what he said to him, as he was drunk at the time. Be remembered being in the hotel that night, and Belcher took a ticket from him for a benefit at the Music Hall, and would not pay him for it. He then went out and spoke to the sergeant. Sergeant Beck, recalled, said the last witness was vicious enough when he spoke to him, and made a long complaint against defendant. George Belcher, living in Gloucester street, called, stated that he was in the hotel that night; he did not know what time it was. He was not drinking, but the gentleman to whom he had been speaking was. His Worship said he would dismiss the case. Defendant said he would like to call a witness, but his Worship told him there would be no occasion to do so. Charge dismissed.

Adulation of Food Act.— John King was charged with having sold 4f.z mustard on 9th June last, the same being adulterated. Mr Garrick appeared to prosecute, and Mr Joyntfor defendant. Sergeant Hughes stated that on that date he purchased the mustard at defendant’s shop. He numbered it 15, and told defendant he had purchased the mustard for analysis and offered that he should seal up the envelope. Afterwards handed the envelope to Professor Bickerton. In cross-examination witness stated that he told defendant at the time that the mustard was to be analysed by the Government analyst. Paid 6d for the mustard, and told defendant he might seal up the envelope. Professor Bickerton called, handed in the result of his analyses, which showed that the sample of mustard in question was found to consist almost entirely of starch and pepper colored with turmeric. In cross-examination witness said he had made the analysis in the presence of his assistant. All the samples of mustard he had analysed were more or less adulterated. Had not made many analysis of mustard, and in the present case had not analysed what is called the best class of mustard. He had only analysed the samples submitted to him. Sergeant Hughes re-called, stated that he had told defendent he was going to hand the mustard to Professor Bickerton, and he might, if he desired, go with him to that gentleman. Professor Bickerton recalled, said the sergeant had handed him the parcel on the same date it was purchased. It generally took three or four days to the analysis. Defendant called, stated that the sergeant had purchased 4oz of mustard from his assistant on the 9th instant. The officer told him afterwards that it had been purchased for the purpose of being analysed, but he did not say he might accompany him to the professor. He had marked on the packet that the mustard was sold as Colman’s Durham mustard. Witness had not adulterated or mixed the mustaid in any way, and sold it as he received it. It would not pay him to do so. There were two classes of Colman’s mustard which he kept in stock. The mustard sold to sergeant had been taken out of a tin similar to the one produced, and was sold for 2s a lb. The other tin produced contained a superfine quality, and was sold for 2s 6d. Did not believe there was such a thing as genuine mustard in New Zealand, Had seen it at home, bnt did not think it would carry out here as it would ferment on the voyage. Believed there were other classes of mustard sold here to those he had mentioned. All the classes were known as ‘•superior,” “Durham,” “ double superfine,” and what was called “ genuine,” but

he had never kept the latter in stock. (Loud laughter.) The cross-examination of the witness by Mr Garrick caused considerable amusement in Court, in the course of which he stated that he believed it was generally known in the trade that the “Durham” class of mustard was only a compound. On being re-examined witness said he could only suppose from the price that this brand was a compound. Mr Trent, called, stated that he impolled Colman’s mustard largely. Ifc was allowed to be the best brand of mustard imported. The “ Durham” class was the lowest brought here, and was only kept by grocers to oblige their customers, some of whom would only have a low class of mustard. He had gone into this matter with a view to manufacture, which he found afterwards would not pay, and he was convinced that pure mustard could not be exported, as it would ferment. The oil had to be extracted from the seed before being prepared, and the mustaid could - only be manufactured by mixing the seed with light , flour, which he understood to be the farina mention on the label; His firm sold the double superfine brand largely, and that class was purchased for the most part by business persons here. In cross-examination witness said he was aware that the Durham brand was known to be a compound. After counsel had addressed the Bench at length, his Worship said the Bench were quite satisfied that the Act had been contravened, as Mr King was well aware of his own known knowledge that what he was selling as Durham mustard was a compound, containing no mustard at all. Mr Garrick said ho was not instructed to press for the full penalty. After Mr Joynt had addressed himself to this subject, his Worship said that as the defendant would have to pay the costs, £2 12s 6d, he would only impose a nominal penalty of Is. Oa the application of Mr Joynt, consented to by Mr Garrick, the Bench decided to impose a nominal penalty, costs to be divided between defendants in the following cases:—R, Sutherland, mustard purchased from him oa the 9th June, found on being analysed to be adulterated with starch, pepper, and turmeric, i : ;ora Thomas Lee, W, A. Knapman, and S, Simpson, coffee purchased from them on Btii June, which was found to be largely adulterated with chicory.

Cattle on Railway —A case against James Savage for permitting calves to trespass on the Lyttelton and Christchurch line was adjourned for a week for evidence.

Breach of Domain Laws.—A case against George Bower for permitting two dogs to stray in Hagley Park was dismissed. Unregistered Dogs.— James Lane was summoned for being the owner of two dogs unregistered for the current year. It was shown that one of the dogs was under age. Fined 20s. Slaughter-house Licenses.— The following applications for licenses to slaughter were granted ;—Walter Blake, section 149, Kiccarton; Alfred Cardale, Lawford farm, Weedons ; James Dann, section 313, Avon district; Michael Fagin, section 3849, North Eakaia; James Gregg, section 6169, Springston; G. N. Hartnell, section 6276, Hororata ; F. H. Wilson, Cashmere, Spreydon district. Disobeying an Order. —A case against William Jameson, for failing to contribute towards the support of his illegitimate child was adjourned for a week in the absence of both parties. Assault. —John Foster, charged with assaulting William Spencer, was fined 10s and costs. Failing to Support his Wipe.—A charge against John Hickling, for failing to comply with an order of the Court towards the support of his wife Harriett Hickling, was dismissed in the absence of complainant.

LYTTELTON. Thursday, September 21. (Before W. Donald, Esq., 8.M.) Drunk and Disorderly.—L, Schmidt and George Jakus, arrested by Sergeant Smith and Constable Moutray respectively, were each fined 10s, or in default forty-eight hours imprisonment. Civil Cases. —Heslop v Beazley, claim £3 Is Id, judgment by default with costs 9s; G. Mackay as Mrs Munn’s agent v Buchanan, claim £l4 16s 3d, for rent and possession of tenement, judgment for full amount, costs 19s ; defendant ordered to give up possession within one week from date.