MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 977, 13 August 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHBISTCHUBCH. Monday, August 13. (Before G-. L. Mellish, Esq., E.M.) Drunk and Disorderly.—Two inebriates who appeared for the first time were fined, the one ss, and the other 10s. Gr. S. Palmer was fined 60s ; P. M'Donald, 10s ; Gr. Bennett, 10s. Wife Desertion. John Brooker was charged with deserting his wife and children on July 9th. After hearing the evidence, his Worship made an order adjourning the case for a fortnight to enable the defendant to pay up arrears, £1 18s Id. Henry Jordan was charged with a similar offence. Inspector Feast produced a warrant issued at Temuka upon which the prisoner had been arrested. He would ask that the prisoner should be remanded to Timani. His Worship remanded the prisoner as requested. Embezzlement. —H. V. Patterson alias T. H. Fielding, answered to his bail. Inspector Feast said that the Tararua left Lyttelton that day, and the Governor's warrant having been received, the prisoner cculd now be handed over to the custody of Constable Bobinson, from Victoria. This was done, and the prisoner left the Court. Bbeach of City Eye-Laws.—The following lines were inflicted for various offences : N. Vale, horses at large (two informations), 10s ; Thomas Wheeler, for having his licensed cab without lights, was fined 10s ; C. Sexton, for not being in attendance on his cab, was fined 10s; Gr. B. Drew, for obstructing the street] by leaving a cart thereon, was fined 10s ; Mary Clark, for having her chimney on lire, was fined 10s. W. Jane, for leaving scaffolding in Cashel street without lights, was fined 10s; L. Smith, for carrying three passengers in his hansom cab, 10s ; W. Vincy, for riding on the wrong'side of the thoroughfare, by means of which an accident occurred, 10s; B. Yates, for obstructing St. Asaph street by allowing a house to remain thereon, 10s; James Bentley, for having no number on his licensed vehicle, 10s; John Dollan, one cow at large, 5s H. P. Blanchard, one horse at large, 5s ; F. Brittan, two horses at large, ss; H. Miller, one cow at large, 5s ; E. Berry, one cow at large, ss. Bkeacu of Bailway Begulations.—B. Fox was fined 10s for having got on to the train whilst in motion.

Assault. —William Smith was charged with violently assaulting Alfred Ansley. Mr Joynt appeared for the complainant. This was a neighbors' quarrel, and it appeared from the evidence that the parties have been for some time on bad terms, owing to some dispute about the boundary fence. The evidence led by the plaintiff was to the effect that the defendant was a man of very violent temper, and had threatened the complainant several times, besides using abusive language. His Worship said there was no doubt that the defendant had threatened the complainant, and it would be for the benefit of all concerned that the defendant, should be bound over to keep the peace. He would have to find one surety in £lO, and himself in £2O to keep the peace for twelve months ; in default, one months' imprisonment. A. W. Wright was charged with having violently assaulted Hannah Dineen on the 28th July last. Mr Loughnan appeared for the complainant. The evidence for the complainant went to prove that a quarrel had taken place between her aad the defcaM as to getting water, Jjjs

defendant threw a bucket of water over the complainant and afterwards assaulted her. The defendant told complainant to go out of the yard, and also called Mrs Paget, the tenant, to put her out A witness named Heslip deposed to the complainant coming into his shop and stating that Mr Wright had thrown a bucket of water over her. She was then dripping wet. The defence was that Wright, being the landlord of the premises, had forbidden the complainant taking water, and that she had used very violent language against him. He denied having touched the complainant at any time. His Worship said he would hear the cross-summons of Wright v Heslip before giving judgment. James Heslip was charged with having used insulting and abusive language to A. W. Wright, calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Mr Loughnan appeared for the defendant. The case for the complainant was that the defendant came into his shop and used abusive and insulting language to him on the ground of the complainant having insulted his servant, the plaintiff in the former case. A witness named Paget deposed to seeing the defendant squaring up to the complainant and using bad language. A daughter of the complainant also gave evidence of the defendant using bad language to her father. The defendant deposed to his having gone to the shop of complainant on the day mentioned, to have an explanation as to the state in which his servant girl, the plaintiff in the former case, had come in. The plaintiff ordered defendant out of his shop, and commenced calling hini names. Mr Loughnan contended that the provocation the defendant had received by the treatment of his servant girl, and the way in which he had been received on asking for an explanation, was sufficient to account for any outbreak of temper of which he might have been guilty. Ho did not, therefore, think that this was a case in wh'e'i his Worship would inllict a line. His Worship said that in the first case it was st mere squabble which had been made the most of. He should make an order for defendant in first case to pay costs, (is (3d. In the case of Wright v. Heslip, the defendant would have to pay costs. James Heslip was charged with assaulting Isabella Lee, and also using abusive language to her. Mr Loughnan appeared for the defendant. There was also a cross summons, James Heslip v. Isabella Lee. These were cases arising out of neighbors' quarrels in High street, which is somewhat prolific of them. From the evidence given in support of the first case, it appeared that the defendant struck the complainant on the footpath, and knocked her down. An altercation then ensued between Mrs Lee on one side and the defendant on the other, and after some dispute the parties were separated. Two witnesses deposed to seeing the defendant knock Mrs Lee down. The compliinant deposed to having sent the children of the defendant away from the front of the shop. The defendant then came up, and struck her first on the shoulder and then on the left breast, the last blow felling her to the ground. He followed this up by using very abusive language. For the defence it was alleged that Mrs Lee had struck the defendant first, and had used abusive language to him. The defendant positively deposed that lie never struck the complainant, but that her striking at him overbalanced herself, and she fell on a case of apples on the footpath. His Worship, in giving judgment, said there could be no excuse for Heslip striking Mrs Lee, and his denial of it could not be believed. He would be fined GOs and costs on the first case. The case of Heslip v Lee would be dismissed. LYTTELTON. Moxday, Aug rsT 13. Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M., and F. 11. Potts, Esq., J.P.) D]U*xkenxe.ss. —Three inebriates were lined 10s each for the above offence.