MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 836, 27 February 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH,

Tuesday, February 27* (Before G. L. Mellisb, Esq, R.M.) Drunkenness—An inebriate who appeared for the first time was Sued ss.

Assault. —Richard Robelt and Morgan Robelt were charged with assaulting a man in the street near the Post office, at one o’clock in the morning. The assault was proved. In reply to his Worship, accused said they had received provocation for their conduct, and at the time the first assault was committed, and before the constable arrived, there was a second man with the prosecutor who wanted to fight. Fined 20s each.

Vagrancy. —John Williams, remanded from the previous day, was again brought up on this charge. A portion of the evidence of the previous day was repeated, and it was further shown that for some time past he had been in the habit of frightening women and children, besides using very improper language at times to the former, Sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour. Apfilialion. —William Meiklehand was charged with refusing to support his illegitimate child, of which Anne Gregg is the mother. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. After hearing evidence, his Worship adjourned the case until Wednesday, in the absence of an important witness. Incendiarism.— Thomas King, an elderly man. was charged on remand with having set fire to Mr E. B, Bishop’s stables, Armagh street, on the morning of 22nd instant. Inspector Feast deposed to arresting the accused on Friday afternoon last at ths Riccarton Hotel. He was in bed at the time. Witness told him the charge on which he was about to arrest him. Accused said he didn’t do it, and asked witness who had seen him do it. He complained about his back being hurt. Luring the time he was dressing he said he believed he had been smoking a cigar at the time, and if he did do it, it was accidentally done. Accused also said he recollected going into a loft and lighting a cigar, which made him fee! ill, as he had bad a drop or two. Accused said that when he saw the fire, in the hurry to come down the steps from the loft ho fell and hurt hia back, and then ran away and lay down somewhere. Witness examined hia face and hands. Could see a few scratches on the back of the man's hands, but there were none, nor any appearance of burns on his face. Accused said that he had burnt his face. On the way to the iock-up accused said he remembered having smoked a pipe that night, and that it had broken in his pocket, Examined accused's clothes at the depot and could see no marks of scorches or burns anywhere on them. Witness also searched accused’s pockets, and in the right hand vest pocket found the three matches produced, but could not find any trace of tobacco or cigars in any of them. The matches were in the lining of the pocket. Edward Brensly Bishop, called, stated that accused had been in his employment for one year and five months, and left of his own accord on Friday, 16th instant. Accused had driven witness and friends out that day, and on the Ferry road told him that he had driven very carelessly on four occasions that day, causing four accidents, and the last might be a very serious one. Accused was mumbling to himself, and seemed to be in a very great passion. They came home round the belt, and on arriving at the house the man said he would leave in a week, and afterwards asked witness if he said he was drunk. Witness replied that he was not sober. The man then said he would leave that night, and witness ordered him off, but he did not see him away. Witness found tire man on the premises when he fed the horse, but did not see him after that date. A man was engaged to take accused’s place prior to the fire, and on the night of the 21st witness went round his own premises at 11 o’clock, and saw all the gates fastened up. There is a stable on the property in an enclosed yard. There was a bull terrier tied in front of the stables that night, and no one could enter the stables without passing him. The dog would not allow any stranger to pass him. Witness did not hear the dog bark that night; the dog would allow accused to pass without barking. Between twelve and one on the morning of 22ad, heard an alarm of fire. I he whole of the top part of the stable was ablaze and burnt. It was full of hay and straw. Accused had no right or authority to be on the premises that night. Believed accused to have a rather hasty and spiteful temper. During the whole time accused was in witness’s employ, witness bad never known him to smoke, and the man had said he did not when engaged. Witness had never observed any smell of tobacco about, and accused lived in the house. Catherine Grindrod called, stated that she is servant to Mr Bishop, and entered his employ on 4th December last. Accused also resided in the house, and took his meals with witness. On last Wednesday night accused was outside the gate a few minutes before nine. He asked witness how she was, and told her not to tell them he had been there that night, and afterwards again said, “ For heaven’s sake don’t tell them 1 was here tonight.” Witness believed he referred by them to Mr and Miss Bishop, and he pointed towards the house. Accused had left Mr Bishop’s nnploy of his own accord, acd another raun had taken bis place, Did not think accused seemed pleased' that his place had been filled up. He did not say anything about Mr Bishop that night. A week or two before accused left he said one day at meal time that he thought Mr and Miss Bishop had plenty of money, and would be a good thing if the place were burnt down, so that they would have to spend a little of it to build it up again. Remembered the Friday previous to the pre thav, accused came home. He said that he would summons Mr Bishop for saying he waa drunk, and on a previous night he said he would make it hoc for anyone who gaid he was dfuQ]s, Oo that sight witoeii bettf

Mr Bishop tell accused that he was not sober. Accused seemed to be in a very bad temper while he was talking to witness, and was walking about. Never saw accused smoke while witness has been living in the house, and on one occasion told her that he would not give a thank-you for all the tobacco and cigars in Christchurch, the dog that was tied in front of the stables the night of the fire would not allow any stranger to pass, but would allow the accused, and always seemed pleased to see him. Accused ceased to have his meals in the house on the Friday (ICth) before the lire. Witness had never given him permission to come on the premises. Shortly after 12 o’clock on the morning of the 22nd witness was awakened by the rrflection of flame through her window. When she got up saw the warehouse over the stable on fire. Witness’s window overlooks the stable. Bid not hear the dog bark that night, in reply to accused witness said she did not ask him on one occasion in the warehouse where the smell of smoke came from. Mrs Mary Beck gave evidence of living near to the stable that was burnt. Knew accused through his living at Mr Bishop's. Between twenty minutes and half past nine the night before the fire saw accused opposite to the public buildings in Armagh street. Accused turned his back as witness came up. Witness had lived near Mr Bishop’s about four months. Could not say whether accused was drunk or sober. Mis Mary Berkeley living in Armagh street called, stated that she saw the fire through the window on the morning of the 22nd instant. Witness was not in bed at the time. It was about a quarter past twelve at the time. It was Mr Bishop’s stable that was on fire. Witness rushed out but saw no one about. The gate leading into Mr Bishop’s premises was wide op n, and witnesejwent in through it. Peter Prvde, landlord of the Kiccarton Hotel, called, staled that on Thursday, 22nd in at, accused came to witness’s place about. 7 a,m. Accused said he had lain out all the previous night, and witness understood that he had come from up country. Accused wanted to know if he could have a bed there that night. Witness saw a notice in one of the newspapers that morning about a fire at Mr Bishop 6 place. Knew that accused had been in Mr Bishop’s employ. Witness read the paragraph in the hearing of accused and others. Ee (accused) didn’t say anything about the fire, but made those present understand its locality, and in respect to its situation to the dwelling bouse. That was all he seemed to know about it. Accused shortly afterwards went to bed, as he said he was tired, and got up fora little while the same evening when he returned to bed again, after which he was taken away. Accused complained to witness of having a bad back, and thought he must have caught cold through lying out that night. Accused did not seem to know any mote of the fire than what appeared in the papers. The evidence having been read over, accused, in reply to the Bench, said he had nothing to say, and was fully committed to take his trial at the next criminal session of the Supreme. Court.