MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1025, 8 October 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, October 8. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —William Lambert, charged with being drunk, was fined 20s ; William Smith did not admit a similar charge, but was fined 20s ; John Reilly, charged with being drunk and with the destruction of property valued at 4s, was fined ss, the charge of destruction not being pressed. William Williams was charged with committing a breach of the peace. The arresting constable stated that he had been sent for by the accused, and when he went he heard Tomkins threaten to cut the throat of Williams’s father, and witness then struck Tomkins. Other evidence was given in corroboration. The Court did not think that there was any necessity for accused to take the law into his own hands while a constable was there. Fined 5s and cab-hire. Case Adjourned. —At the request of Mr Thomas, the case of Theresa Dixon against John and Jane Kenny was adjourned till Thursday. Miscellaneous. —For allowing cattle to wander at large, Enoch Hamilton was fined ss; J. Falloon, 5s ; W. Brooker, 5s ; A. Bligh, 5s ; W. Price, 5s ; W. J. White, 5s ; B. Hale, ss, and Joseph Wood “for neglecting to keep a light burning on hoarding, was fined 10s. Failing to Support Illegitimaee Child. —James Eead was charged on remand with failing to support an illegitimate child. Mr Thomas held that under 4 and 5 of William IY, the father was not responsible, after the marriage of the mother of his bastard, for the support of that bastard unless the mother were not in a position to do so. Mr Slater for the plaintiff, contended that the provision referred to did not apply here, as it had been made for the purposes of the Poor Laws in England and Wales, its object being to relieve the parish from the support of bastards. After argument, the Court gave judgment for the defendant Eead. Pigeon Stealing. —Thomas Gledhill was charged with stealing, on or about the Bth of August, fifteen pigeons, the property of Samuel Duphty, Colombo street south. Mr Joyut appeared for the accused. Complainant stated that he kept his pigeons in a box by the side of the house, some sixteen feet from the ground. There was a ladder lying about, and on the morning he missed the pigeons he found it leaning up against the dovecot. He missed fifteen pigeons, amongst which were a white fantail cock and a black and white hen whose tail had been pulled. There was also one young one taken away. The white fantail cock had returned about a fortnight last Sunday. He came in the mornings for his food, but always went back to try and bring his hen home again too. Last Sunday week was the last time he had come to witness’s place, and then he had the hen, a fellow one, with him. They went away again, and witness followed them to see where they went to, and he saw them go to defendant’s house. Accompanied by Detective Walker, witness went to the house, and found four pigeons which he swore to as being his property. He also found four others which he thought were his —felt certain but could not swear to them. They were in a concealed house. Witness swore that the four pigeons produced were his property. Last Friday morning defendant, in presence of witness, said to Detective Walker, “ Oh yes, I know they’re Duphty’s pigeons, and I left word with my wife to give them to him if he should ask for them.” He also said the pigeons had gone to his place, and he had shut them up because the neighbors had complained of their destroying peas growing in their gardens. Witness thought it was a strange time for peas to grow. Defendant nlan told witness that if he had come and asked for the pigeons he (defendant) woidd have given them back. The four pigeons in Court were worth five shillings. Mr Joynt cross-examined the witness at considerable length. John Fish, well-sinker and teeth■xtractor, said he lived next door to Mr Duphty, and the pigeons produced were Duphty’s property. Richard Hayter, clerk, residing with Duphty, recoguisid the pigeons in Court as Duphty’s property. Detective Walker had gone with complainant last Friday »orniag to the house of the accused, whQ

was not at home. Got permission from the wife to look at the pigeons, which were in a box in the loft of the fowl-house. There was no door to the loft, which could be gained from the fowl-house. The pigeon-house obtained, the complainant picked out four as his property —the four in Court. Witness then went and found the accused, and told him of the charge against him. He said, “I know they’re your pigeons, Sam, Two of them flew over to your place this morning.” Witness told accused that he should not have shut them in, and he said they were breeding. Mr Joynt then called more witnesses for the defence. George Dutton said that he lived near the parties, both of whom kept pigeons. Duphty’s pigeons went to Gledhill’s, and were a perfect nuisance, as they went into the garden of witness and the gardens of others. He frequently complained to Gledhill about Duphty’s pigeons. Witness was certain that Gledhill would not steal the pigeons, and that he was as honest a man as there was in Christchurch. Mrs Lange, a neighbour of Gledhill’s, knew that he kept pigeons, and she had seen strange pigeons about there. Richard Green gave corroborative evidence. After hearing Mr Joynt for the defence, his Worship did not think the case was one of larceny, and it was not unlikely, had it been such, that the accused would have let the Sigeons loose from time to time, as the fantail ad been liberated. There was not the slightest shadow of doubt that the pigeons were stray pigeons which had entered Gledhill’s premises. The case was dismissed. Assaulu. —Thomas Monagan was charged with assaulting his wife, who expressed a desire to withdraw the charge if her husband took the pledge. Mr Izard appeared for the defendant. His Worship, observing that the defendant’s intemperance had apparently been the source of the unpleasantness, adjourned the case for a week. Illegal Rescue. —Catherine Brown was charged with illegally rescuing a cow from William Pyke. It appeared that the cow, which belonged to Mrs Brown, had been trespassing on Pyke’s land, and that while he was driving the cow to the pound Mrs Brown came and rescued it. The defendant called evidence to show that the cow was on a private road at the time Pyke took possession of it. The Court remarked that being . on, a road the cow was liable to be impounded. After hearing the evidence, his Worship remarked that it was unfortunate the law fixed the lowest penalty in such cases at £5, and it was clear that the rescue had taken place. Mr Pyke said he did not press for a penalty, and he had only brought the case because he had been subjected to annoyances for the last eighteen months. The case was therefore dismissed, the defendant to pay costs. False Pretences. —Richard Tubman, on remand for forging and uttering a promissory note for £2O, was further charged with obtaining £3 15s from Henry Kennedy, of Irwell Hotel, by means of a valuless cheque. He was committed to take his trial at the Supreme Court.