MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1037, 22 October 1877, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, October 22. [Before G, L. Hellish, Esq., R.M., and Edward Curry, Esq., J.P.] Miscellaneous. —Bridget Ferrick, drunkenness, was fined 20s ; Thomas Pearte, drunkenness and resisting the police, 40s ; John Wright, drunkenness, 10s; John Williams, 10s ; W. Lewis Harlin, charged with drunkenness and with destroying a pane of glass, value 10s, was fined 5s and ordered to pay the damage. Vagrancy. —William Hall, sen., William Hall, junr., and Ellen Thomson were charged with occupying a house frequented by reputed thieves and prostitutes. Detectives Walker and Benjamin gave evidence which supported the charge. Samuel Russell deposed that he had been in the house on Saturday night, when he was robbed of all his money, £lO to £ls. The Magistrate remarked that the parties had been previously convicted, and each of them would be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Larceny of Wood. —Thomas Fitzgerald, a half-caste boy, was charged with stealing wood, value Is., from the Railway Station, Christchurch. The railway gatekeeper had Been the accused carrying away the wood. He had seen the same lad stealing wood on previous occasions. When the hoy was spoken to he became abusive. —The boy averred that he had got some of the wood at the railway gates, and some at a brick building near the road, but none of it inside the yards.—The Bench remarked that there was no desire to be hard upon him, but hoped the present case would act as a warning. The parents were often to blame for partial eucourag • mont in such cases. Tho boy wua mscharged. Larceny of Money. —Susan Henderson was charged with the larceny of £7 from a deoiling. Detective Walker had gon’3 to tie house of the accused on Sunday afternoon, and told her that money had been stolen from Tweedie, one of her lodgers. She could not account for it, and told him to search the house. Ho did so, but without finding anything. Later in tho evening ho returned with Detective Benjamin. Tweedie took witness into the garden, and pointed out a spot where the witness dug, and found tho remains of a purse (produced). He then arrested tho ac cused, who was in bed, and charged her w;tli stealing about £7 frojp Aodyew Xweo4is.

She said “ Who ever did it I didn’t.” The house was situated in Bath street, near the railway. —Detective Benjamin gave corro • borative evidence. While the accused was talking to witness and Tweedie she began to cry, turned to witness, and said she would tell the whole truth. She said “ This is the way I got it. I didn’t take it out of his coat. I found my little girl playing with it under the water tank. The papers were all wet, and I burned them, and kept the money. I then buried the purse with some peelings, not designing particularly to conceal it. It wae fear which prevented me from telling; Detective Walker. After he left I sewed the money up in my petticoat, and if you come in to my bedroom I’ll give it to you now.” Witness went with her, and she took the money from her dress—a £5 note and £l. note—saying that was all she found in the purse.—Andrew Tweedie, carpenter, boarding with the accused, had left his coat and money in it when he went out of the house on Sunday. The purse contained a £5 note, two £1 notes, and a half-sovereign— at least there was about £7 10s in all. There were also several papers in the purse. He did not wish to prosecute if the Court would agree.— The accused: I did not lake the money out of the pocket, neither did I bury the purse on purpose, I did not intend to keep the money. I had the money, and I ought to have given it up, I plead guilty.—Dr. Turnbull gave evidence to the effect that the accused belonged to a most respectable family, and that she herself had always borne a respectable character.—The Bench was willing to give full weight to the evidence, but there was no doubt of the wilfulness of the offence, and the accused would be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, with hard labour. Labceny of a Watch.— Francis Allen Crampton, alias Cunningham, was charged, on remand, with the larceny of a watch, value £B.—Detective Walker had arrested the accused at Waltham on the 18th instant. He charged him with stealing a watch from John Elkin in April last. Accused said he was in Lyttelton in April last, and did not know the man spoken of. On explanation being given by witness, accused said, “ Oh, him ; I don’t know what’s become of him, or anything belonging to him. That will have to be proved.” Witness had got the watch produced at Coates and Co.’s on the 18th instant. The number of the watch was 184904, the maker C. Price and Co., London. —John Elkin, the prosecutor, said he was a labourer, and had seen the accused before. Recollected the last races in Christchurch, Wednesday, April 18th. Had seen the accused that night. They were together, and witness got the worse of drink, and transferred his watch from his vest to his trousers pocket. Hot into a cab, and some one was with him. Accused told him next morning that he got out of the cab in St. Asaph street. Was also down the Ferry road with accused atWoolston. Witness and accused went into a wash house to sleep, and when witness awoke accused was not in the shed. Witness missed his watch and pocket book, and his clothes were torn and cut ; his trousers pocket was cut. Next day, when witness saw the accused, he appear ed to try to evade him, but on being hailed he came up, and they had a pint of beer together. The watch produced was witness’s, he thought. It was the same maker and number. The accused stated, at this stage, that the prosecutor had given him the things to look after, saying he would trust him with anything. —F. Barnard had seen the accused on 19th April last. He said he was hard up, and was going to pawn his watch, which he showed to witness, who bought it for £3. Accused said he had bought the watch from Mr Roberts, watchmaker, Colombo street, and that he had the receipt in his house. Afterwards accused said he had lost the receipt. Witness subsequently sold the watch to Hector Mackay, who lived on Mount Parnassus, for £7 7s.— James Fawcett had witnessed the transaction between the accused and Barnard.—Edward Gambling, a station-hand at Mount Parnassus, knew Hector Mackay, and Colin his brother. Hector had given witness the watch produced, and he had left it at Coates’s last Tuesday for repairs.—Henry Roberts, watchmaker. Colombo street, had sold the watch produced to John Elkin, for £8 10s. Elkin took it away from witness’s shop on the 18th of April last. Had never seen the accused before.—The accused : “ All I have to say is that I’m not guilty of having taken the watch. The man and I were intoxicated, and he gave me the watch to take care of for him, and I was hard up.” He was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court. Breach of Railway Regulations.— Archibald McLaren and Benjamin Monk, jun., were charged with transferring, the one from the other, a railway ticket which was not transferable.—Mr. Garrick, for the accused, admitted the offence, which had been committed in ignorance of its nature.—Fined 10s, and ordered to pay the railway fare, Is Bd.

Breach of By-laws.— G. Osborne was fined ss; P. Laurie, 5?; R. Butcher, 15s; G. Sellars, 10s ; Thomas Westuway, 10s, for petty breaches of the City By-laws. Breach of Licensing Laws,— George Beatty admitted keeping his licensed house open at illegal hours, and selling liquor within such period. He was fined £5. Selling Without License. Mary Burns, owner of a house on Shand’s Track, was charged with selling a o uantity of whiskey less than two gallons. Mr Thomas for the accused. Hugh M'Donald, carpenter, working at Taitai, knew the defendant’s house. He had been at her house on the 15th instant, haying gone to get lodgings. There was a man named Newman with witness. Next morning witness asked for two whiskies and she said she would sell it for a breakfast, She then supplied them with a glass of whiskey oaoh. It was paid for. In reply to Mr Thomas, witness averred that he had not gone to try to get drink at Mrs Burns’s in consequence of anything which had been said to him at the Wheatsheaf Hotel. Mr Thomas said his object was to shew that the witness ■was a common informer who went about the country with the view of obtaining convictions and sharing in the plunder. _ The witness averred that he had never said that a poor man would do anything for money. At this stage the Court adjourned for half an hour. [Left sitting.

LYTTELTON. Monday, October 22. [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M., and T. H. Potts, Esq., J.P.] Drunkenness. —Richard King, cimrged with this offence, was fined 10s. Civil Case. -Pettigrew and Harkisi. v. James Snosswell, claim £6, for repairing a boat. Mr Nalder appeared for the plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs for £-i 12s Bd, Court oogts i3s, solicitor's fee £1 l»<

THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT AMEND* MENT BILL. The short title of the Act shall be “ The Public Health Act Amendment Act 1877. Clause 2 provides that, all property in district constituted by the Christ church District Drainage Act, 1875, shall be liable to be rated for the purposes of Part 11. of the Public Health Act, 1876. Clause 3 provides that the Christchurch District Drainage Board, as Local Board of Health, shall fix the amount to be levied, not exceeding twopence in the pound, and the City, Borough Council, or Road Board shall levy and collect such rate in the district within their jurisdiction. Clause 4 reads as follows :—All such rates shall be held by every Road Board or City or Borough Council as trustee for the Christchurch District Drainage Board, as such Local Board of Health, and shall forthwith be handed or paid over to such Local Board of Health. The Road Board or Council entitled to retain cost of collection, in case of dispute the amount to be settled by the Resident Magistrate or other person appointed by the Governor. Clause 5 reads as f Hows : —lf any Road Board or Council shall refuse or neglect to make and levy, and to take all necessary steps to collect, recover, or pay over, any such rate as aforesaid, every member thereof at the time of such neglect or refusal shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds. Clause 6 provides that the Christchurch District Drainage Board may recover £SOO already expended for the purposes of part 11. of “ The Public Health Act, 1876.” Clause 7 provides that sections 18 and 19 of The Public Health Act, 1876, are repealed. Clause 8 provides that the Local Boards shall make an annual report to the central Boavd, and clause 9 that the central Board shall make an annual report to the Governor.