MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 954, 16 July 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, July 16 (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.) Breach of Publc House Ordinance. — George Thos. Lloyd was summoned for keeping open,'.and selling drink in, his licensed house, the City Hotel, on Sunday, Ist July. Mr Thomas appeared for defendant. Sergeant Hughes stated that about five o’clock on that morning he saw two men go into the back of the hotel. He, with Constable Hamill, followed them, and saw each of the men with a drink in their hand. He knew both of the men. In cross examination, witness said he did not know whether they had asked for a bed, and had been walking about all night. Theodore Moubray called, stated that he and another man went into the hotel and had a drink that morning. He lived in Christchurch, and had been in the house before that night. Mr Thomas called the night porter, who stated that on that morning the two men came to the gate, and one asked for a bed. Witness told him the place was full. They said they had been walking about all night, and asked to be permitted to remain until daylight. He allowed them to come in near the fire, and as they said they were cold, he supplied them with a drink. Heard one of the men afterwards say that he lived at the Heathcote Valley. After Mr Thomas had addressed the Bench, his Worship said the case of the house being open would have to fall through. Defendant woidd be fined £5 for selling drink to other than hmia-Jide lodgers. J. Oram Sheppard was sumraoded for having his licensed house, the White Hart Hotel, open on the Ist July. Sergeant Hughes stated that about eight o’clock that morning from seeing two men come out of the side door he went inside, and found two men in the private bar. They were not having any drink. In cross examination, witness said that one of the men was a bootblack, and the other knocked about. Had been told by the servants that one of the men had been called in by them to clean the boots, and the other to scrub out the bar. A witness named Addison called, stated that on that morning he was engaged in pumping the cellar out, and had opened the side-door to fix the pipe. It was his fault that the door was left open. His Worship said he would give full weight to the evidence, but he would suggest to Mr Sheppard to give his servants more definite instructions as to allowing the door to be open. Case dismissed. Edward Pargeter, for having his licensed house open and selling drink, in the Garrick Hotel, during same date, admitted the offence, and was fined £5.

Unregistered Dogs. —William Calvert, summoned for being the owner of an unregistered dog, showed that he was not the owner of the animal, and the case was dismissed. Frank Wiggins, for a similar offence, which was proved, was fined 20s.

Breach of Railway Bye-laws.— George Ripscombe, summoned for attempting to get into a train at the Christchurch Railway Station while it was in motion, was fined 10s.

Not Supporting Child. —Charles James, summoned for neglecting to comply with an order of the Court to contribute towards the support of his son at the Naval Training School, was ordered to pay the arrears, £4 10s, within twenty-four hours, ,in default one month’s imprisonment. Affiliation. A case against William Stephenson, for neglecting to provide for the maintenance of his child, was adjourned for a week to allow of complainant being present.

Not Supporting Wife. — The adjourned case against J. W. Donaldson wiig called on. Defendant said he had been promised goods and assistance by several gentlemen. He had taken his Worship’s advice and joined the Good Templars, and he hoped soon to be in a position again to support his wife and family. His Worship said he would give him another chance and adjourn the case for a week. Defendant asked that. it might be adjourned for a month, as having his name so often in the papers was doing him a great deal of injury. His Worship said he could not help it, defendant should pay up the arrears.

Breach of Licensiq- Act. —Lucy Davey was summoned for this offence. Mr H. Slater appeared for the defendant. Thomas Johnston called, stated that he was at defendant’s house in the Hazeldean road, on the 9th of April. He had a bottle of beer, for which he paid ss. In cross-examination, witness said he did not afterwards deny having (he beer in the house, and did not say he had laid the information as he had a down on a certain person. Sergeant Hughes, called, stated that about two o’clock on the morning of the 10th of April he heard a row at defendant’s place. Went there and saw' prosecutor outside, who told him he had had beer in the house. Witness went inside and saw that beer had been in some glasses on the table, and also saw some bottles in the grate which appeared to have been recently emptied. Mr Slater called some females, who denied that any beer had been served to the man. Another witness stated that she heard the prosecutor say he had not had the beer, bul that he would make defendant pay for having the “black thief” on her premises. His Worship said the case seemed to him pretty clear. Fined £2O and expense of witness. Assault. —Henry Laing was summoned for assaulting Chas. Orchard on 7th July. Mr Joynt appeared for the complainant. From the evidence of complainant and his witnesses it appeared that he and his sons were gather-

ing drift wood in the Waimakariri bed, when defendant came up with a gun, ordered them off, and after laying the gun down, raised a piece of wood to strike him. He (defendant) then attempted to throw the wood, that had been collected into the river, and complainant attempted to prevent this. Laing then took up a stone and threw it at Orchard’s head, but it did not hit him. He then struck complainant on the nose, causing it to bleed profusely. In cross-examination by defendant it was stated that he (defendant) had at the time warned off complainant and bis sons, telling them they were trespassing. Complainant had called him a liar, but it was after he said that he (defendant) had previously warned them off this place before. He (defendant) said that he was good enough for the three sons, and challenged to fight them. Complainant had told defendant that he was a miserly fellow, and tried to prevent any poor man taking legitimate means to try to do himself good. Defendant had asked the man with the gun to stand by during the assault. Defendant in his evidence stated he was out shooting that day, when he saw defendant and his sons on his land. The witness then went on to say that he took his shot belt and coat off before reaching defendants, merely for the purpose of throwing the straggling wood into the river. He did not throw a stone, but a stone was thrown at him. He was struck with a piece of wood, but did not attempt to strike any one with a piece, and only struck complainant in the face in self defence. His (complainant’s) sons had come up to him in a menacing attitude, and complainant had been very abusive to him. Defendant handed to the Court a receipt from Mr Templar, showing that he had purchased from him the right of all land from a certain line, and he (defendant) held the freehold of the land on which the dray was when he first came up. He had only acted in self-defence throughout. Complainant did not strike aim, but it was through his (defendant’s) activity that he was prevented from doing so. Defendant’s brother called stated in his evidence that Mr Orchard had struck his brother in his presence. Mr Joynt, in his remarks, said the evidence was clear that the place where the wood was being collected was a perfect open river bed, and Mr taing seemed to be a petty autocrat in the district who desired to assert his authority, if not by right at least by might. His Worship said he was afraid the assault could not be justified; defendant would be fined £2.

Breach of G-ame Laws. —Thos. J. Hill was summoned for shooting a cock pheasant on 4th July. Mr Thomas appealed for defendant. J. O’Callaghan, ranger, deposed that on that date he was passing defendant’s father’s farm at Papanui when he heard a shot fired in thej'garden. Saw defendant pick up a cock pheasant and throw it under the fence. Told him to bring it to witness, and he did so, saying it was the only one he had shot during the season. Believed that the shooting season had been gazetted. Mr Thomas called defendant, who stated that on that morning he went up the garden after a cat and the bird rising, fired at it under the impulse of the moment. He had only shot two birds during the season, and each time in his father’s garden. Mr Hill, senior, corroborated this evidence, and said that pheasants were now being shot and numbers of hares snared in the districts, about which facts no trouble seemed to be taken by by the rangers. Mr O’Callaghan wished that the names might be given him. His Worship would hardly believe the difficulty experienced in getting evidence, though it was known that poaching was being carried on. He had been out until twelve o’clock at night trying to catch poachers. Mr Thomas said that though asking for a nominal penalty, he would have advised the admission of the offence, only it had been reported by the ranger that defendant was one of the worst poachers in the district, and from his attention to his office duties he knew that this could not be possible. Mr O’Callaghan said he had known defendant for years, and known him to be a very respectable young man. His Worship said chat under the circumstances he would only inflict a nominal penalty, but he hoped that sufficient information would be given to the ranger to put a stop to the snaring of hares spoken of. Pined 20s.

Slaughter House Licenses. —The following applications for slaughter house licenses were granted: —Wm. Bashford, section 6387, Courtenay; James Eaton, section 5585, Green Park ; W. H. Fuller, on premises near Black Horse Hotel, Lincoln road ; Thos. Hancock, section 56, Spreydon district; Henry Moffatt, section 1880, Lincoln ; F. Primmer, section 170, Riccarton district; T. Phillips, premises, Windwhistle ; H. Pannett, section 2718, Ellesmere Junction ; Henry Tish, section 598, North road ; J. M. Watt, section 3194, Belfast Factory. The application of John Wright, section 118, Lincoln road was granted, on the understanding that the building was removed to the lower end of the section. The application of John Horler, section 75, Hoathcote district, was refused, and an objection had been sent in to the Bench against the application, and Sergeant Colmau, Inspector of slaughter house licenses, stated that the proposed building would only be fifty yards from a dwelling on one side, and seventy yards on the other, and there were a number of houses distant about 100 yards.