MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1096, 3 January 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, January 3, [ Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.]

Drunkenness. —Three first offenders were each fined os. Alfred Rhodes was fined 10s. Mary Kennedy 20s, and cautioned, and Wm, Bowman, for drunkenness and resisting the police, was fined 5s for the first offence and 40s for the second. Violent Assault. —Wm. Peter Smith was charged on remand with violently assaulting his wife at Addington, on Sunday night last. Mr Izard appeared for the accused.—Elizabeth Anna Smith called, stated that she was the wife of the accused. Left her home at seven p.m. on last Sunday evening. Hpr husband wag not then in the house. She returned at half-past eight, when her husband came home. Found some one had been in the house, and she asked him whether he had been at home during her absence. He said nothing but raised his hand to strike her. She at once turned her head away, and immediately received a blow on the side of the head. Her husband had something like a straight stick about eighteen inches in length in his hand at the time. She fell down and felt very bad for a little time afterwards, and her head began to bleed. Witness afterwards went to the Hospital, and the surgeon there dressed the wound. Accused did not strike her more than once. Witness spoke to a lady on the road about it when she came to herself.—Floyd Collins, house-surgeon at the Hospital, stated that the last witness, when brought to the Hospital, had a contusion, about an inch and a half in length, on the right side of the head, at the end of which there was a very minute'wound, and a depression in the centre showing where the blow had been struck The wound was a contused wound, and not an incised one, and might have been done with the fist, or a stick such as that produced. The wound was not bleeding, and would not have presented the same appearance had the woman received it through falling, as there would then have been no depression. The injury was not of a severe nature, and witness was surprised that the woman should have been taken to the Hospital— Q-. S. Reston, gaoler at Addington, gave evidence of Mrs Smith having called on him at nine o’clock on Sunday night, and complained of having been assaulted- Witness accompanied the woman to her house, and in pis presenpe accused admitted having struck her, but said ho had done so under provocation, as she would hot remain at home and attend to her household affairs.—Detective Walker deposed to "arresting the accused, who 1 acknowledged having struck the ‘ woman with his "fist.—After Mr Izard had addressed the Bench, his Worship said that as accused had been locked up since Sunday last he would take that cirpumstance into pp fioi f jer a(4on. The seriqus feature of the case was uepuaed haying 4 weapon of some kind in his hand at the time. He would be fined 40s, in default three days’ imprisonment.

Labceny as a Bailee.—- John Hill was charged on warrant with appropriating to his oWn 'use a hoyse and buggy belonging to Mr E. TV. Millett, of Christchurch. When arret'd at the Bacecohrsc hill joy Detective ‘‘ •-Jla Wd he Jiad ho intention Benjaii.. * M h”ggy Pght ojlfc. He of selling the ho. * W2PP; $&4 01 4y $ u liad been drinking at ' '•duoli 1?P W them in to raise a little money, . hi* tended paying hack nest day, as a mate o. named Den had promised to lend it to Jnm. I

He said he had been persuaded to put the horse in for sale by two men. —Charles Bishop, groom, in Mr Millett’s employ, deposed to accused coming to the stables on the 28rd December, for a buggy to go to Sumner. Be said he would be back before 8 p.m. Witness cold the accused that the hire of the horse and buggy would be los. Accused got the trap and went away. He did not return. Che buggy was brought back to the stables by Mr Millett about four or five days afterwards. Accused did not pay tire hire.—E. W, Millett called, stated that he learnt a horse and buggy had been let to a man named Hill, which had not been returned. Witness went to look for the man and found him (accused) at a boarding house in Madras street. Asked him what he had done with the horse and trap, and accused said he would go and fetch them. Witness went with him in a cab to Tattersail’s, and on arriving there Mr Dumergue, the manager, said he could not allow the horse and buggy to go, as he had advanced £7 on them. Accused then asked to be allowed to go to his mate at the Caversham Hotel, whc’i he would get the money from him. Witness and Mr Dumergue accompanied accused, but could not find his mate. Mr Dumergue then went for a constable, witness remaining, and while he was absent accused jumped over a back fence and got away. Next saw accused in Court. Witness got back the horse and trap the following day. Valued, the property at about £BO. Accused showed considerable reluctance in going with witness to Tattersall’s.—C. W. Dumergue, manager at Tattersall’s, gave evidence of accused going to the yards on the 27th of December to enter a horse, on which he said he wanted an advance. Witness told him he could not give him anything unless he had the horse in his possession. Accused said he owed something for the livery of the animal, and witness, on his representations, gave him £1 to pay the livery. Accused afterwards came back with a horse, harness, and buggy, and entered them for sale on the following Saturday, placing a reserve of £7O on them. At accused’s request witness gave him a cheque for £6, as a further advance. He went away, and did not return until brought back by Mr Millett the same evening. Witness had not received the money advanced.—Accused reserved his defence, and was committed to take his trial at the next criminal session of the Supreme Court.