MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 847, 12 March 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCSURCIJ. Monday, March 12.

(Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M., Dr Deamer, and W. H. Pilliett, Esqs, J.P.’s.) Drunk and Disorderly.— One inebriate who appeared for the first time, and had been admitted tp bail, was lined 10s. Johq Foster, for being drunk and resisting the arresting constable, was fined 20s and 2s cab hire. Neill Smith, charged with being drunk and fighting in High street, was fined 40s. R. Dunn, for committing a breach of the peace, was fined 10s. An inebriate, a first offender, was remanded to Lyttelton i or medical treatment.

Using Obscene Language. Bridget Ferrick, charged with using obscene language in Manchester street, near the Congregational Chapel, was fined 20s, Stealing from a Shop.— Thomas Gafney was charged with stealing a pair of trousers and vest from the shop of Cohen, Colombo street. Accused, after stealing the articles on Saturday evening, had disposed of them at the Borough Hotel. Mr Cohen identified the property as belonging to him. Valued them at 14s. Had missed them on Saturday night last. In reply to the Bench, accused said he had picked up the articles on the footpath. Several previous convictions were proved against the accused, and he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Larceny op a Swag.— James Kennedy was charged with stealing a swag from Barrett’s Hotel. Accused had been seen by Detective Kirby coming out of Barrett’s hotel on Saturday night with the swag, and knowing the man not to be the owner of it, followed him along Madras street, and eventually arrested him. John Gardiner, the prosecutor, deposed to leaving the swag at the hotel. Accused had no authority to take it away, and should not have had it in his possession. In reply to the Bench accused said that if he had not taken the swag away somebody else would. Sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment, with hard labor. Stealing from the Person.— The remanded case against James Johnson for stealing a sum of money from Maurice Power, was further remanded for eight days, on the application of Inspector Buckley. Larceny of a Coat.— Richard Coleman was charged on remand with stealing a cost on 21st February last, belonging to Fredk. Harrison, from the Caversham hotel. When arrested, accused said he had been asked by a man to pledge the coat. He had pawned it at Nathan’s for (is, and had spent the money in drink. It was shown that the prosecutor had reported the robbery the day the coat was stolen. Accused had been seen on that date in the skittle alley of the hotel sitting alongside the coat which was made up in the form of a parcel. Evidence was given that the prosecutor had purchased the coat at Stewart’s pawnshop on the morning of that date. Sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment, with hard labor. Assault. —Richard Ansley was charged, on warrant, with having violently assaulted his wife on Thursday night last. Mrs Ansley stated that her husband had been drinking heavily for some time past. On the night in question he came home drunk and went to bod in his clothes. About the middle of the night he got up, struck her, and kicked the children when they attempted to protect her. When drinking he was in the habit of pawning his and his son’s tools, and had threatened her with violence on several occasions, and she was very much afraid of him. A daughter of this witness gave corroborative evidence. In reply to the Bench, accused said his wife had been in a lunatic asylum, and at times her conduct was very provoking. For two years past she had been trying to put the children against him. Ordered to find one surety in £lO, and himself in £2O, to keep the peace for twelve months ; in default, one month’s imprisonment.

Disobeying an Order. —Lauritz Neilson was charged on summons with having failed to obey an order to contribute £1 per week towards the support of his wife and family. Mrs Neilson stated that she had only received £4 since the order was made. It seems that the parties are living in different parts of the same house, and in reply to the Bench defendant said he desired a separation as he did not consider his wife was deserving of any support from him. He had purposely stayed away from work, and refused to give her any money so that she might summon him. His Worship said he would let the matter stand over for a week to see what arrangement could bo made for a separation, if it was found that such a course was necessary. Assault. —Edward Barrett was charged on summons with having assaulted Andrew Anderson at Woolston on Cjth March. Mr Joynt appeared for the defendant. The evidence showed that on the morning of that date complainant accused defendant of overthrowing a small house belonging to him, when he threatened at the time to give him a black eye if he repeated the expression. In the evening complainant went to defendants lodgings “ partly drunk and partly sober,” and again accused him of the offence, when defendant struck him. Mr Joynt called witnesses who stated that night, when complainant went to the lodging house, he oU id be wanted to see defendant for the purpose of insulting bini) and raised hie band first, His Worship said the case was a very trumpery one, but as defendant had struck a blow, he would be ordered to pay lls Gd cost?, Creating a Disturbance Jno Murphy charged with creating a disturbance at the Eastern Hotel on the night of the 7th March, was fined 10s and 6s 6d costs. Breach of Public Works Act. —Daniel Stacey charged on summons with having travelled from Christchurch to Lincoln op 10th February without haying obtained a ticket, was hnei 30s,

THE POOLBY CASE. Edward Pooley, one of the English cricketers, arrested on warrant appeared to answer the charge of having violently as* saulted Ralph Donkin, on the night of 28th February last. Mr Joynt appeared to prosecute, and Mr Cowlishaw for the accused. The prosecutor called, stated that on the last day of the cricket match he was in the bar-room of the Commercial hotel in what was called the billiard-room bar. Accused came to witness and demanded £36 for a bet he pretended to have made with him. Witness said he had nothing at all to do with the bet, as he had “ cried off it.” Accused came back again and endeavored to compromise the matter; but witness would not have anything to do with it, as he considered he had nothing to compromise. Witness with friends went into the passage, {job Pooley fdllowed ‘him and used very improper language! He then struck witness the shoulder of the barman, who had come between them, Oharlwood, another bf the cricketers, came to witness and asked him to go to the Theatre. Before reaching there Pooley followed them, seized witness by the shouldei and burned him rohad, and again asked him Whether he intended* to pay the money, fitness said not, and Pooley struck an." knocked him down, and struck him in th. face with a large ring he had on one of hu fingers. Witness’s face was very much cut, and also the back of his head. Ho provocation was given to Pooley, pd witness only raised his stick in self Witness was

afterwards carried up to his room at the hotel, and Pooley forced open the door, and again used vile language, when Mr Buck and Mr Radcliffa interfered. Was advised not to stay at the hotel that night. In crossexamination the witness said that Pooley had asked him for the money after the match was over, because he said he had won the bet, Gould not say that Pooley had asked to refer the matter to any local man. The barman had come from behind the bar when he thought there was going to be a row, and interfered. Witness was struck by Pooley over the barman’s shoulder. After this witness was going to the theatre with Mr Charlwood and Mr Buck, when Pooley followed him, caught him by the shoulder, and turned him quite round, and struck him violently, throwing him down. When he was down Pooley got on to him and struck him repeatedly in the face. Would swear that he did not raise the stick to Pooley until after he was struck. Witness did not know that Pooley’s room was next to his. Mr Kadcliffe, landlord of the Commercial Hotel, deposed to hearing a row outside the hotel that night, and on going out saw Pooley throw Donkin clown and strike him several times. A gentleman pulled Pooley off Mr Donkin. The latter was afterwards taken up to his room ; his face was marked, and his nose bleeding. Pooley followed up, and stood at Donkin’s door, using very strong language. Witness then interfered. It would depend which staircase Pooley went up whether he would have to pass Donkin’s room to get to his own. There was no occasion for him to have done so by the stairs he went up at the time. Pooley was cut over the eye, and blood was issuing from the cut. John Bailey called, gave evidence of hearing Pooley speak to Donkin that night about the bet. Heard the latter ask whether he had not told the waiter in Pooley’s presence that the bet was off. Pooley called Donkin some very harsh names, and afterwards struck him in the presence of witness, The prosecutor was then taken away by some friends, and witness saw nothing more of the altercation, Joseph Watson, barman at the Commercial Hotel, called, stated that both Donkin and Pooley were lodgers at the hotel. On the evening of the 28th February heard the parties having an argument about a bet. Heard Pooley tell Donkin that ho was no gentleman and a swindler, and that he would pay the b out before the night was over. This was in the passage, and immediately afterwards seeing there was going to be a row, witness went between them, and Pooley struck Donkin on the side of the cheek, witness also receiving a portion of the blow. Donkin did not strike back, nor did witness hear him use any provoking language. Witness then took hold of Pooley and moved him away. Witness distinctly heard Pooley say that he would pay the b— out before the night was over. In cross-examination the witness said that he had to use force to move Pooley away. Heard some words used about a bet. Donkin did not give Pooley any provocation so far as witness saw or heard. ' Thomas Swinton gave evidence of being present that night, and seeing both parties in front of the bar. Heard Pooley say to Donkin, “ Are you gei ig to pay me or not ?” Donkin said not, as he had told him before the match that it was a catch bet. Pooley then said “ You b —- shicer, it would not take me long to take it out of you.” The barman then came round, and took Pooley by the shoulder, and as he was taking him away, Pooley turned round, struck out at Donkin, and said “ You b take that.” The blow struck Donkin on the cheek, and blood burst out, and Donkin asked witness to go for a policeman, and went upstairs, followed by Pooley ; witness then told the landlord of this and he went after them. In cross-examination the witness said he' hac} not rehearsed his evidence, and carqeto the Opart with the truth. He had npt received any money to give his evidence, and considered the question an insult. Mr Buck called, stated that on that night he went into the Commercial Hotel, and heard Pooley and Djonkin having some words about a bet. The former was using very abusive language, and threatened to knock his head through the door. Pooley afterwards said “I’ll have you now,” and struck him- Charlwood came and took Donkin away, and witness went with them. After getting as far as the Lyttelton Times lane, Ppoley came up, cangnt Donkin by the shoulder, turned him round, and struck him three times. Isonhin then raised his stick in self defence. Both fell on the ground; but as the crowd collected round, witpess could not see what happened very distinctly. Donkin was led afterwards to his room with his face bleeding, and when they were up stairs Pooley came up and said, “ Let me have him.’ 1 Mr Kadcliffe, who was also present, then interfered, and Pooley said, “I’ll have him tomorrow morning.” Both parties seemed to be perfectly sober, at least, witness would say that Donkin was. In cross-examination, the witness said he would distinctly swear that Mr Donkin had never struck Pooley before the other had simple him, n Q r could he saj even then that he had done so. Mr Cowlishaw said before giving evidence he would make a few remarks, iu the course of which he said his client had only been told after the match that the bet was a “ catch bet.” Donkin had given Pooley § to 1 that he would name the individual scarps of each of the Canterbury team. After the money was won Pooley was then told that the bet was a catch, and that he (Pooley), acting as umpire, the bet must be off. Smarting under this, his client had certainly struck Donkin, and when afterwards he went out into the street, and again asked for the money, Donkin struck him three times withhis stick after which Pooley knocked him down. Thomas Lakeman, called by Mr Cowlishaw, stated that he heard some angry words between the parties in the hotel that night, and saw Pooley strike the other a slight blow on the cheek. The affair last'pd cniy a few moments. Aftenyavds Donkin, Charlwood, and another I 'went outside, and Pooley followed them. When he got behind Donkin, Pooley touched him on the arm, and when Donkin turned round, asked him whether he intended paying him that money. Donkin then raised his stick and struck Pooley three times with it, cutting him over the eye, marking him on the forehead, and knocking his hat. Pooley then struck him, and the men were separated, Witness took Pooley upstairs to his room, and there he expressed his sorrow to witness that a row had occurred, and ho thought Donkin had got more than he deserved. Did not hear Pooley afterwards at Donkin’s room use threatening language. He, bn the contrary, seemed to be very aorry for what had occurred. Pooley, called, stated that Donkin made a bet of 6 to 1 that he (Pooley) would not name the individual scores of the

eighteen. The names were put down, and witness placed the score opposite to each. The paper was then put into an envelope, sealed up, and kept in the office. Afterwards, but before the match, a waiter told witness that Mr Donkin had cried off the bet. Witness said it took two men to make a bet, and would take the same number to cry off. After the first innings witness saw Donkin, and told him he would let him off the second innings if he would pay for that one. The night in question at the bar he asked Donkin for the money, told him he was no gentleman to refuse to pay his bets ; might have called him a shicer, and being very angry, did certainly strike him. Donkin went away, and witness was told that he had gone out. He followed him and touched him lightly on the arm, asking him again for the money. Donkin at once turned round, and struck him violently on the face with his stick three times. In self defence witness had rushed in and knocked him down. Witness only went to Donkin’s room afterwards to make it up and have a bottle with him, Would not admit that while there he said he’d have it out of Donkin the following morning. Mr Radcliffe had asked witness not to kick up a row, and he went away quietly. If Donkin had come to him himself before the match, and told him why he wanted to get off, he would have let him. In cross examination the witness said that the number he had put opposite each name was a duck s egg. Did not thick the bet was a catch one, but a professional man would know better than to take it, T. S. Sweet, called, said he had heard the particulars of the bet, and did not consider it was a catch. After counsel had reviewed tht evidence at length, his Worship said the weight of evidence on the second assault was undoubtedly in favor of complainant ; as to the first of course there did not exist the slighiest doubt. The defendant might possibly have been acting under a sense of irritation at the bet not being paid. Defendant would be fined £5, and he (his Worship) would give him the benefit of that feeling, or the fine would have been very different.

[Left sitting. J