MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1218, 28 January 1878, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, January 28. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness.—George Hewett was fined 10s; Ellen Thompson was fined 20s and Is 6d cab hire ; Hugh Jones was fined 10s ; three first offenders were each fined 6s, and one who had been admitted to bail was fined 10s.

Breaking into a Shop.—G-eo. Stevens was brought up on remand charged with breaking into Stewart’s pawn shop on the 30th December last and stealing a quantity of ■jewellery therefrom. In the absence of the justices who had heard the evidence, His Worship remanded accused until 30th inst. Miscllaneous. —James Tait, for neglecting to keep two lights on a hoarding, was fined 10s. For permitting his chimney to catch on lire, John Clark was lined 10s. Charles Oswald, summoned for obstructing Lincoln road by allowing a house, in course of removal, to remain thereon for several days, was fined 20s. Horses and Cattle at Large.—For permitting horses and cattle to wander at lar'e the following persons were each fined ss”—R. McPherson, W. Eedfern, Frank Harris, F. Peiper, Wm. Pcckan, H. Stark, F. Primmer, W. Benfield, J. Otley, John Phillips, J. Falloon, M. Howard, GK Brown, F. Q-oodman, O. Peacock, M. Thomas, W. Hartnell, G-. Trash, R. Falloon, C. Cook. Vagrant Act,—Michael Ryan was charged, under the Vagrant Act, with having no lawful visible means of support.—Sergeant Wilson stated that accused had been in Christchurch for about two years, during •which time he had done very little work. Accused was seldom or ever sober. He had three or four children, and the eldest girl had become a prostitute through her father’s drunken habits. His house was 1 file less at present than a house of' iUd'aoje, Mipted sa6 accused m

in receipt of a small pension from the Government. —Accused told his Worship that he received Od per day pension. He had been nineteen years a soldier, and could not do all kinds of work.—A person living near to accused’s house said the place was very badly kept, and was frequently visited by strange men. His (accused’s) children were neglected, and he himself was constantly in the habit of getting drunk. —Accused said that when stationed in Canada he had been frost bitten, and was laid up. If his Worship would permit him he would try and get some work to do, and would not appear in that Court for drunkenness or anything else again. —His Worship told accused that he hardly believed him, but he would give him a chance and let the matter stand over for a fortnight. Injuring a Hohsk.—A case against Alex. Flemming, for wantonly injuring a horse belonging to Thomas Mears, was adjourned until the following day. Abusive Language. —Helena Miller was summoned for using abusive language to Mary Herliky. The parties reside at Sydenham, and some misunderstanding had occurred about the artesian water, and according to complainant’s statement defendant called her a villian, and threw stones at her. The women had been before the Court the previous week in reversed positions on account of a chicken, and it was asserted that this little matter had to an extent influenced the bringing forward of the present case.— Mr Pearce, Inspector of Nuisances, called by complainant, stated that he knew nothing of the present case, but he had often visited the neighbourhood where the parties lived. He had frequently heard them quarrelling, and considered from what he had seen that defendant was generally in the habit of giving most provocation.—Complainant’s husband called, stated that defendant constantly annoyed him by allowing artesian water to run over his land, and made a practice of wilfully throwing buckets of water over it. Other evidence of a similar nature was given.—ln the absence of a witness named Wood his Worship said he would allow the case to stand over for a week, to allow of that witness being in attendance. Mary Bain was summoned for using abusive language to Susan Connelly. It was shown by the evidence of a witness that the language had been used by defendant without receiving any provocation, and his Worship ordered her to pay the costs, 6s 6d. William Pengelly was summoned for using abusive language towards Elias Willis, The evidence of complainant showed that some misunderstanding had existed betwen the parties for about thre* years, which complainant attributed to his having opposed defendant getting a license for his house. Ho related some annoyances to which he had been subjected, and this evidence was corroborated by Mrs Willis. On the particular day in question defendant, it was stated, had made grimaces and pointed to complainant.—Defendant denied all this conduct, and his statement was supported by witnesses. —Complainant told his Worship that from the threats made he was afraid of his life. —His Worship said there evidently existed an ill-feeling about this license, and a course of “systematic annoyance had evidently been practised. Defendant would be ordered to find one surety in £2O, and himself in a similar amount, to keep the peace for twelve months. Disobeying an Order. —James Mitchell was summoned for disobeying an order of the Court to contribute towards the support of his wife and child. —Defendant offered to give £1 then, and to consent to an order for the payment of 10s per week, which amount he would be able to meet. —His Worship accepted the amount tendered, and made the order for the amount consented to.

Removing Gates. —James Knowles, Wm. Blunt, and Archibald White, three lads, were summoned for removing, on night of Ist January, a gate, the property of J. A. Rankin, Addington ; a gate and slip-pan el at Addington, belonging to the General Government, and with removing a gate belonging to Mr Wm. White. Mr Rankin called, stated that a horse had got out of hia paddock from which the gate was removed ; but not much damage was done, and he had no desire to press the charge. Perhaps the extent of the damage would be one shilling. Mr White called, said he had heard that a gate of his had been removed off the hinges, and was replaced by a Mr Tapliss. He had not suffered any damage, or at least not more than four shillings. Mr White, addressing the Bench, said he did not wish to say anything against the lads, as they had promised not to repeat their conduct. It they attempted it again they would be certainly caught, as the residents at Addington were determined to keep a sharp look out for the future. His Worship said that it would be as well for defendants to know that by the Act the Bench had no alternative on a second conviction but to send the offenders to gaol. A lad named James Harvey, who was in the company of defendants that night proved that defendants had removed the gates. The third charge was not proved. His Worship said that two charges had been proved. He could indict a fine in the first charge, but he had no alternative in the second but to imprison with hard labor. Inspector Hickson said that as the offences had occurred nearly at the same time perhaps his Worship could treat them as one offence. After looking through the Act his Worship said he could not do so, but as it was a foolish piece of larrikinism he would deal with the case as leniently as he could, though he hoped it would be a warning to the lads in future. On the first charge they would be each fined ss, and have to pay the Is damage between them. On the second charge they would each be imprisoned for six hours, and he had no alternative but to impose hard labor. He trusted that this would be a caution to defendants, as if they appeared before him again he would have to imprison them for a longer time. Larceny as a Bailee. —Charles Ross was charged with misappropriating a watch, valued at £5, the property of Richard Butler, The prosecutor stated that he left the watch at Coates and Co.’s, Christchurch, to get repaired. Accused was working with him at Maxwell’s station, and at the end of December last as he was coming to town witness gave him the order produced to get the watch. When witness came to town about a fortnight afterwards he saw the accused, who told him that he had received the watch, but had lost it and a pocket-book containing all bis papers. Valued the watch at £5. Accused told his Worship that he had informed the prosecutor that he was in the horrors at the time, and did not know what he had done with it. He had promised to pay Butler for the watch, and he had consented to a price named. He admitted having got the watch at Coates and Co., and paid ten shillings for cleaning it, Samuel Stewart, pawnbroker, deputed to accused pawning the

watch produced at his shop. He said it belonged to himself, and witness gave him £1 on it. Accused was sober at the time. On the evening of the same day he came with two others and redeemed the watch, Henry Dan by stated that on the 3rd January accused refused to bring it at first, but after some time witness gave him 10s for the ticket and wont with him to Stewart’s pawnshop and redeemed the watch. The one produced is the same. Accused said he was hard up at the time. Some days afterwards witness handed the watch to Detective Walker. —Mounted-constable Wheatley, stationed at Coalgate, stated that he arrested accused on warrant at South Malvern on Saturday 26th instant. Accused said he had made it all right with the prosecutor at Christchurch. He had given him an order on Mr Maxwell for £2 10s, and was going to send him the balance of £5 ; that the landlord of a hotel in Cashel street had drawn up an agreement that if the money was paid the prosecutor would take no further action. —Accused said he had signed his name to the agreement with a cross, and that he had been drinking very hard after he got the watch. —Mr Deal called stated that accused had promised to send witness £5, which he was to forward to prosecutor. Understood when drawing up a sort of agreement, that the money was to be paid for a watch belonging to Butler, which accused had lost.—His Worship said as this was a first offence ho would deal leniently, and only impose a sentence of one month’s imprisonment, with hard labor. —On the application of Inspector Hickson, his Worship said he would order that Dauby receive the money found on accused, to repay him for the amount expended in redeeming the watch, and the 10s given for tfie ticket.