MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 732, 24 October 1876, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, October 24, (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M.) Drunkenness. —A female inebriate, who appeared for the first time, and was suffering from the effects of drink, was remanded to Addington for medical treatment. Larceny as a Bailee.— Herbert Bevans, alias McQuinn, was brought up on the charge of misappropriating a pipe, value £l, lent him by George Hamilton. Accused had, after receiving the pipe, pledged it at Stewart’s pawnshop. Accused pleaded drunkenness in defence, and was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment, with hard labour, Ejimbezzlement. —H. S. Saunders was brought up on remand charged with embezzling moneys belonging to his late employers, F. Lines and Co, brewers, Waltham. Accused had been employed as collector and traveller for the firm, and while acting so had received £lO from D. McGilvray and £4 from J. Barlow, on account of his employers, for which he had not accounted. Accused pleaded guilty, and hoped, in consideration for his family, his Worship would deal leniently with him. Mr Lines, recalled by his Worship, gave the accused an excellent character up to the time he had committed this offence. Mr Barlow also spoke in favor of accused, whom he had known for the last fourteen years. His Worship said, in consequence of the representations of the prosecutor and Mr Barlow as to the previous character held by accused, and also in behalf of his family, he would deal leniently with him. He would be sentenced to two months’ imprisonment with hard labour on each charge, or four months in all. Destitute Persons’ Relief Ordinance.—Mrs Beattie obtained an order of £1 per week against her husband for the maintenance of herself and family. His Worship also granted tier an order to have the custody of the children. LYTTELTON. Tuesday, October 24, [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.] Dog Registration Ordinance.— Thomas Robinson was charged, upon the information of Constable Bullen, with the above. The case had been ordered to stand over from Tuesday last, to procure the evidence of a witness, after the hearing of which the Bench dismissed the case. Mr T. Bond, assistant-surgeon to the Westminster Hospital and lectureron forensic medicine, offers through the Times a remark on the Bravo case‘which is of some value. After pointing out, as we have done, that the theory of suicide is not supported by independent evidence, he observes that if Mr Bravo had himself taken a large dose of antimony and then in a fright used emetics, he would probably have recovered ; whereas if he took it in his food or drink, the action would be deferred, and the poison have time to kill him. All vegetable extracts, of which, of course, wine is one, retard the action of antimony, a drug which, though rapid in its action on carnivorous animals, operates more slowly on herbivorous ones. That suggestion that if the emetic had been taken immediately after the poison, as it must have been on the suicide theory, the man would have lived, is the most valuable yet sub' mitted to the newspaper jury of revision,—which ought not to eit, but does.