MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1229, 11 February 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, February 11. [Before Q-. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness. —John Baker, who had been admitted to bail, appeared in Court in a state of liquor, and was ordered to be locked up for twenty-four hours. George Craw, was fined 20s; Louisa Ryan, £Dsj Wm. Griffith, 10s; John Wright, 20s. Two first offenders were each fined ss.

Vagrancy.— Edward Bligh was charged under the Vagrant Act with being an idle, disorderly person, and having no lawful visible means, or sufficient means, of support. Mr Joynt appeared lor the accused, and asked under what section of the -Act the information had been laid. His Worship replied the first: section. Detective Benjamin proceeded to give his evidence, when Mr Joynt asked that it might be taken down, as he thought this was a case that required some Utile investigation. The detective then proceeded to say that he arrested the accused in Dagmar House, Conference street, at half-past eleven on Saturday last. When arrested, and told the charge, accused said he was bad enough, but witness would have to prove the charge, as he had a number of good friends in Christchurch. Witness had known accused for the last three or four years. Knew lie had no lawful occupation, and kept the company of betting men and sharpers. Accused was stopping for sometime at the Zetland Arms Hotel, afterwards at the White Hart, and since he left there had been staying at Dagmar House. In cross-examination by Mr Joynt the witness said he had never seen anything disorderly of the accused beyond his keeping the company of sharpers and frequenting public bars. Had never seen anything wrong of the accused be yond his being an idle person, and did not follow any occupation. His doing so did not affect witness. Believed there were other idle persons in Christchurch. Witness was in the habit of treating all others the same whom the police considered had no lawful means of support. Could not say whether accused had no lawful means of support. Had never inquired from accused what his means of support were. Witness was not aware that accused bad been following the occupation of bookmaker. When he was arrested he showed witness a book and said ho keot one, bub witness did not look at it as lie "did not understand such a book. When the public, through individuals, asked witness how such a person went about and got bis living, inquiries wore then made and if it was found that the individual had not sufficient lawful means of support, then the police arrested him. Accused had been in the habit of associating with bookmakers, billiard players, and sharpers. Meant by sharpers men who got a point in a bet. Had never heard of an instance where accused had not paid his way. There was one instance that accused owed money, but it was paid afterwards. There were £lB 2s on accused when lie was arrested. There were also a couple of promissory notes and an order, payable to him, for £l9. Accused has bad no occupation at all that witness could see during the last two years. Had never known-the accused to be concerned in any active scene of disorderly conduct, Dagmar House, where accused was staying, is a very respectable house. Had never personally known the accused to attend houses of ill-fame. Re-examined by Inspector Hickson—The accused has been under surveillance of the police for some time past. Mr Joy nt here protested that such a question should be put unless the object for which ho was suspected was slated. Inspector Hickson— Was there anything njore found on him. WtepwOfa, i tfew. Jwpectw Pifiwi *

Stolen property ? Mr Joynt rose and said that such a remark, coming from an inspector of police, was monstrous, more especially coming from an officer of such experience. He had never heard a more monstrous remark in any court of justice. His Worship—There is another charge against him. Mr Joynt— Well, let them prove it. He (Mr Joynt) would protest in the strongest terms against the line taken by the police. It seemed to him that when they made up their mind to convict anyone they stopped at no means to effect their purpose, and he (Mr Joynt) would certainly remember that remark at a future time. William Seabright, of the Zetland Arms Hotel, and J. O. Sheppard, White Hart deposed that accused had lived with them, and both gave him a good character. Detective Walker was next examined at some length as to his knowledge of accused. Bligh he said lived by his wits. Why witness had not arrested the blacklegs and sharpers who frequented Christchurch was that they had not been brought so prominently before him as accused, and they did not make Christchurch the seat of their operations. Knew that these people spent a great deal of their time in Christchurch. Witness would swear that he had never said to any one that he would like to have an opportunity of having accused. Could not define any particular act of impropriety that accused had been guilty of. Inspector Hickson said this was all the evidence. Mr Joynt, in addressing the Bench, said there had not been a paritclo of evidence against the accused to show that he could be convicted under the information. He (Mr Joynt) had put his client into the power of the police and witnesses ; but not one of them could say a single word against the man. The Vagrant Act, though n. very useful measure at times, might be made an engine wherewith to commit an act of the grossest outrage on private liberty and tyranny for a purpose, and this could at any time bo brought into force by the police who were desirous of finding out the means by whicha person obtained his living, when they could not learn it otherwise. After further remarks from Mr Joynt, he said that there were witnesses in C#urtwho could testify to the character of accused. His Worship said that it would certainly require stronger evidence against the accused before a conviction could bo obtained. Ho did not agree with all the remarks of counsel, as it had been shown that accused did not get his living in a very creditable manner. He must bo careful for the future, if he did not, some day or other a conviction would be recorded against him. He would be discharged. Larceny op A Spoon. —Edward Bligh was then charged with stealing a spoon the property of J, Oram Sheppard. Mr Joynt appeared for accused. The spoon bore the letters J. 0.5., and was found in one of accused’s boxes after his arrest on the previous charge. Ho said it had been given him by Mr Snider after his illness and that he had forgotten to return it. Mr Sheppard identified the spoon as his property. When Mr Snider was living at accused’s place he was not well, and had used the spoon for taking medicine. Accused was staying there «t same time. Valued it at 3s 6d. Was sure it had not been taken intentionally, and must have been taken by mistake. Mr Joynt said he thought it would hardly be necessary for him to address the Bench. His Worship said he was inclined to think that the spoon was taken by mistake. Addressing accused he told him that he was one of those dangerous curses of society who were the ruin of half the young men in the place. These young men who were not adepts in sharping tricks were encouraged to play time after time by such as accused, resulting in ruin to themselves and disgrace to their friends. He (accused) had got off now, but he would advise him to alter his mode of life or he (his Worship) had no doubt lie would appear before him again.—Discharged.

Larceny of a Swag. James Jones, charged with stealing a swag from Uncle Tom’s Boarding House, belonging to Thomas Shearer, was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment wit li hard labor. Failing to Obey an Order. —Joseph Hannara was charged, on remand, with failing to obey an order of the Court to support his wife and two children. Mrs Hannam stated that she believed her husband had work to go to, and he had promised to provide for herself and children for the future. She would ask his Worship to allow her to withdraw the charge. His Worship told accused that he would inform him that under the new Act passed last session, lazy, drunken loafers, who would not support their family, could bo sent to gaol for six months without any warning. Case discharged. Perjury.—Mary O’Connell was brought up on warrant charged with this offence. Inspector Hickson said he was not prepared to go on with the case and would ask for a remand for a couple of days. Remanded until 13th inst.

Cattle at Large. —For permitting horses and cattle to wander at largo, the following persons were each fined 5s: —Albert Brown, A. Cowen, Isaac Butterfield, Hugh Taylor, R. 11. Clarke, W. Vincent, J. Butterfield, and A. Cowan. Driving Along Intersections.— Alick Smith, James Lamb, S. Coleman, A. Pyue, VV. Savage, E. H. Brooker, A. Kent, J. Facon, W. T. Mitchell, James Stark, P. Howard, W. Vincent, J. Bowman, J. Rowe, and W. McDougall were summoned for driving along intersections of streets beyond a walking pace. The offence was admit ted generally, but not being fully aware of the by-law was pleaded in defence. His Worship said that as the Council no doubt only wished that the public should be made fully aware of the by-law, and as the defendants had appeared for the first time, he would dismiss the cases, but defendants would no doubt bo careful not to repeat the offence. Public House Ordinance— J.S. Wagner was summoned for keeping open and selling drink in his licensed house, the Clarendon Hotel, during prohibited hours. Mr Izard appeared for defendant. The evidence of Sergeant Beck and Constable Burke showed that they entered the house at half-past twelve on the morning of the 27th January. Three men and the barmaid were in the bar at the time besides two boarders. There were pewters and glasses on the counter, but saw no drink served. Two witnesses called, stated that they r entered the front door after eleven o’clock and had a drink three or four minutes before the officers came in. One of the witnesses hud paid for it. Mr Wagner was in the bar at the lime. A second information under the Public House Act was laid against defendant for employing his barmaid in the bar after eleven o’clock. The lannaid, who was called, stated that Mr Wagner had desired her to leave the bar at eleven o’clock that night, but she had remained to speak to two of the gentleman boarders. She left when the police came in. Her instructions were always to leave the bar at eleven o’clock. His Worship said that with reference to the lost charge the clause distinctly laid down that no barmaid was to be employed after 11 o’clock, and if their presence was not to be considered employments, would open the door to all sorts of abuse of the Act, as an employer might soy pro forma you need not work but remain in the bar to speak with customers. It would he iajudicious to sanction such a practice, and the presumption should l)c that the presence alone of a barmaid was sufficient to show that she was employed. As the question had not been asked whether drinks had been served by the barmaid after eleven o’clock or not, he would dismiss t lie case. On the other information a fine of £5 would be imposed. Abusive Language. —A, W. Wright was summoned for using abusive language towards Ellen Heslop. A second information, for striking a child, was laid against same defendant. The evidence showed that the misunderstanding had been caused through the parties’ children, and that the affair had been a neighbour’s quarrel, arising out of previous misunderstandings. Tht offence of striking the child was not sustained, and his Worship dismissed it. On the other charge, defendant was fined 10s and costs. —Gregory Byron was charged with using abusive language to Elizabeth Sweeney. The parties live alongside each other, and it was shown that defendant had used disgusting and unwarranted language. His Worship told hfiu that this was fiot the first oy second M fc'see of wtyr

conduct, and some day he would hare t« pay dearly for it. Fined 40s and costs. —Eliza Green was charged with using abusive language to Edward Green, and also with breaking twenty panes of glass. The parties are man and wife, and have been separated for some years, A daughter lives with her father, and because the mother heard that her husband had let one of their houses as a house of ill-fame, she had come down and abused her husband, and broken the panes of glass stated, besides damaging some property inside. Ordered to pay £2 damage claimed and costs. Scab Act. —J. T. Sahey was summoned for having twelve sheep in the Addington Yards without their being branded with his registered brand. The charge was not pressed, and defendant pleaded that the offence hod been committed by a mistake. Fined ss. Assaults. —J. Rice, charged with assaulting W. Qossnell, did not appear whan called, and his Worship ordered a warrant to issue for his arrest.— Joseph Hannam was charged with assaulting Eliza Gorkin on Ist February. The parties are related, and defendant went to his mother-in-law’s place for one of his children on the date named. As he was not sober, complainant refused to give him the child, when he struck her. The assault was proved, and a fine of 40s and costs imposed. Leaving- their Cab. —James Bowman and James Rowe summoned for not being in sufficient attendance on their cab, were each fined 10s. Applications pos Bail. —Mary O'Connell, remanded on a charge of perjury, was admitted to bail in one surety of £SO and herself in a similar amount.