MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 930, 18 June 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, June 18. (Before Gf. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., and J. T. Brown, Esq., J.P.) Drunk and Disorderly.— Joseph Einley was fined 20s ; Thomas Cox was fined 40s ; four first offenders were each fined 5s ; and three others, who had been admitted to bail, 10s each; Henry Wakefield and John Mclntyre were each fined 10s. Breach of the Peace. —Wm. Herrison, arrested for striking a man in Durham street, was fined 60s.

Miscellaneous. —Millett and Saunders, summoned for not having sufficient lights on their stage carriage running to Aronside, were fined 10s. R. Falloon, for allowing a goat to run at large, was fined ss. Wm. Wood, for allowing a horse to wander in Cambridge terrace, was fined ss. For obstructing the footpath on South belt by allowing four cows to graze thereon, John Doke was fined 10s. Edward G-eorge, summoned for obstructing the footpath in High street with two bales, was fined 10s. John Brooks, for obstructing Hereford street by allowing a house to remain thereon, was fined 10s. For causing an obstruction in Colombo street with his fish barrow, Wm. Broad was also fined 10s. For permitting his chimney to catch on fire, Richard Sullivan was fined 10s. For having an unregistered dog in his following, John Fish was fined 20s, Breach of Municipal Corporations Act.— Charles Barnard and Elizabeth Barnard were summoned on six informations with having obstructed the City Council employees, while cutting a drain through their section of laud. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for defendants. Mr Hobbs, City inspector, stated that on the 7th inst., from instructions he received from the Council, he had men employed in cutting a drain on defendant’s section between Aldred and Conference streets, to relieve the neighborhood from storm water. As fast as the men cut the drain, Mr Barnard filled it in again. In reply to the Worship, witness said the informations had been laid under section 220 of the Act. In cross-examination by Mr Williams, witness said that the water which it was desired to be drained did not lie on defendant’s land, but contiguous to it. Did not know whether defendant had filled up his land under a previous notice received from the Council. Mr Williams contended that in fairness to his client, who had made his land higher merely by filling it up, in compliance with notice from |the |City Council, if it were required to go through the land, it ought to be done in a constitutional manner, as pointed out in clause 219 of the Act, but, as the Bench would see from the sketch produced, it was not really required to go through his client’s ground at all to drain the sections referred to. Under clause 220 he took it that it was merely intended that where a depression existed which was a nuisance, the Council could go in and fill it up, charging the expense incurred. In reply to his Worship, Mr Hobbs said that clause 219 had not been complied with. Mr Williams said that as that was the_ complainant’s case, lie would desire to point out to the Bench that the Council had taken most arbitrary action in bringing the present proceedings, as not only had they destroyed his client’s garden, but had also laid six informations under the belief no doubt that he was not in'a position to go to the Supreme Court. [Mr Hobbs said he had only acted under instructions.] Mr Williams said he did not refer to the witness personally, but the Council seemed to fancy they possessed unlimited powers. Mr Hobbs said he could show his Worship, if required, that there was water lying on a portion of defendant’s section at the time. His Worship told witness he had closed his case, and should have stated this before. He (his Worship) would hold that clause 220 of the Act merely referred to action that might be taken as regarded any particular plot of land on which water wight bo lying at the time j and it' the Council de-

cided to cut a drain through any person’s land they should first comply with clause 219. The cases would be dismissed.

Assault. —A charge of assault against W. J. Falloon, brought by his wife Matilda Falloon, was adjourned for a week in the absence of the parties. Protection of Earnings. —A case against Richard Shannon, brought by his wife, wa withdrawn.

Public-House Ordinance. —The adjourned informations against J. O. Sheppard, of the White Hart Hotel, for selling drink and keeping his house open during prohibited hours, was called on. Inspector Buckley asked to withdraw both informations, as the witness, who had evidently given a wrong name, could not be found. Charges withdrawn.

Abusive Language. —Eliza Marley was charged with having used abusive language to H. Egan, and was fined 10s. Illegally on Premises. —John Gaynor was charged on summons with entering the stables of G. Clark, Waltham, on the morning of 6th June. It was shown that defendant had been suffering from the effects of drink when he entered the stables, and he had cut the straps of a cover on a horse, causing him considerable injury, as had only recently been clipped. Defendant had been drinking heavily all that day at the Waltham Hotel, and at eleven o’clock at night he was told the house was full, and that he could not have a bed. Defendant pleaded hard to be given a chance, and his Worship told him that under the circumstances he would be leniently dealt with. Sentenced to forty-eight hours’ imprisonment, with hard labor. Assault. —James Davis, Robert Allen, and Frederick Kemp, charged with assaulting John Fisher on the Papanui road on the night of 2nd June, were each fined 10s and costs.

Disobeying an Order. —Lauritz Neilson was summoned for disobeying an order of the Court to pay £1 per week towards the support of his wife and family. Mrs Neilson stated that her husband had not found her anything for the last seven weeks. In reply to the Bench, defendant said he was determined not to give his wife any more money until she explained why she had sent her lodgers to annoy him constantly. Ordered to pay the arrears (£7) within one week; in default, one month’s imprisonment. LYTTELTON. Monday, June 18 (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.), and H. 11. Webb, Esq, J.P.) Refusal of Duty. Charles Monsch, Charles Poulic, Thomas Schroeder, and Albert Drusche, seamen aboard the Amalie, on remand from Saturday, were charged with this offence. Mr Hassal, the German Consul, was present at the request of the prisoners, and Mr Schwartz acted as interpreter. The captain stated thas he gave the accused in charge because they refused to wash down desks, saying they wanted to see the Consul. He refused, the barque being ready for sea. The men stated that the refusal arose from a dispute about money. It appeared that on a passage from the Mauritius they had been a man short, and compensation had been offered to them by the captain at the time, winch he now refused. The Bench said they had no jurisdiction in the matter, but that the Consul was willing to hear their complaint, and endorse his opinion on the ship’s papers. They had the power to order the men aboard, and should do so. The Consul afterwards heard the case.

Civil Case. — R. Forbes v Master and Owners of the Union, brig ; claim £4 17s Bd. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for the plaintiff. Application for re-hearing refused, with costs.