MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1258, 19 March 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, March 19. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq,, E.M.J Drunkenness. —Wm. Warner was fined 40s, and William Galvin, 205.. y; ■ Larceny of a Saw.— Clarence George Linden was charged with stealing a circular saw, valued £6, from Davidson’s saw-mills, Colombo street. The evidence showed that accused, who had been employed by the prosecutor, pledged the saw at Stewart’s pawnshop on 2ud March last. When arrested accused admitted having taken the saw, but he had done so in lien of wages. At his lodgings several small articles were found which belonged to the mill. These were identified by Mr Davidson as his property, who stated that accused had been paid his wages up to the time he left his employ (23rd February last), and he had no authority to take these articles. In cross-examination, ? Dayidton Said that the bailiffs were in charge ofi Ks ? {witness’s) premises at the time. He never helped to remove goods to his (accused’s) place, but accused did assist to remove goods from witness’s house. Never said anything to him about getting things away from the mill. There was a bailiff in the mill, and another in witness’s place. Some of the goods were removed. The bailiff took possession of them, but made no inventory. Accused here told the Bench that Davidson, his clerk, and himself, removed goods while the bailiff , was in possession. Cross-exarainaton of witness continued—The bailiffs were in possession when accused left witness’s employ. The saw produced was inpluded in the inventory taken by the bailiff who locked the goods up in the office, and kept the key. By the Bench— Was not , aware that there was another key to the office. Samuel Stewart deposed to accused pawning the saw produced at his place. He said he had brought it from Auckland. William Franks deposed to accused living at his house. He brought the saw produced there and took it away some little some since. By accused—l did not help you to put the saw in a frame, neither did I carry it on my head for you down to the pawnshop. I did not get £1 from you at the time, but you gave me £1 at night time.. Robert Davis, bailiff, deposed to taking possession of accused’s house and mill on 23rd February. Had no inventory. Gosling-, bailiff, called, stated that he was at present in possession of prosecutor’s mill. Had made no inventory of the saws, but believed there were nineteen. Accused called Mrs Franks, who stated that when she was lying in be,d one morning at her place she hoard Davidson tell accused, in the presence of Henderson, the clerk, to take away everything he could find, as it would do his (Davidson’s) family good, and he knew that he (accused) would take care of them. This would be on the Thursday, the day after the bill of sale was executed, and the goods were removed on the Friday night by Davidson, accused, and others. Some days afterwards Belgrave’s servant came with a cart and .took away a lot of the things—some were in the house and some in the yard. When Davidson came and saw a box of tools in the house he told accused he was very glad, and the box was taken away afterwards by Davidson and, another man. On Saturday morning Davidson came and asked accused if he had don© what he asked him to, and again said to Linden that if he would take everything he could see it would do his (Davidson’s) family good. Believed thafc the saw produced was brought to the house with the other things. Her husband (Franks) helped to put the boards round it, and covered it up with a piece of calico. As a. portion of it was uncovered, her husband said that would not do, and she lent him shawl. Her husband then put it on his head, and he and Linden went over the belt to take it to the pawnbroker. | J. B. Hamilton, called, stated that he had assisted in carrying things away from Davidson’s house to where Linden was lodging. Did not know of Davidson asking accused to remove everything he could—that, was from the mill—bub he asked accused ‘co remove things from the house, leaving sufficient, to satisfy the landlord for his rent. Believed the box of tools was taken from the mill, but. knew it had been missed by Davis, the bailiff,, and it was returned. In reply to ike Bench,, accused said he was guilty of pledging thesaw, but he did so to get some tools, and intended to redeem it. Sentenced to one months’" imprisonment, with hard labor. ' Disobeying an Order. —Frederick Lane was charged, on summons, with failing to comply with an order of the Court to pay £1 'fOs per week towards the support of his wife and family. Mrs Lane stated that since, she was in the Court, six weeks ago, she KaH only received £1 from her husband. Defendant told his Worship that he had met withjan accident through helping a gentleman,, with a horse and buggy, out of the xiver, ancl he was unable to work. Since be. had been in> Court he. had only earned £2 10s, and out of that he had sent his wife £l. Sentenced totwo months’ imprisonment, with, hard labor. LYTTELTON. [Before IJ, R, Webb, J. T. Rouse, and T. H. Potts, Esqs., J.P.’e] Tuesday, March 19. Malicious and Wilful Injury to Property.—George White was accused of this offence. It appeared that accused had thrown a stone through the window of a watchmaker in London street, named Frederick Rutland. The stone was thrown at seven this morning, and broke a pane of glass valued at ss, damaged-a 30s clock so as to render it unsaleable, and broke several articles of jewellry. The whole damage sustained was about 495. Accused ackuowled the offence, saying that as he had done wrong he supposed he should have to pay for it. The police stated. that accused was a seaman belonging to the barque Antares, and had evidently thrown the stone with the intention of getting away from the ship, which he was very desirous to do., (Prisoner slated he bad £lo> coming to him. Prisoner was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment, and to pay 65& for damage done and witness’s expenses. Blipaos. 03 Public-house Ordinances. — Robert Anderson, licensed of the Albion* Hotel, was charged with keeping his house open for the sal© of liquor on Sunday morning last, Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for defendant. Constable Dineen gave*, evidence that on Sunday morning about nineo’clock he went into the Albion Hotel., The house was- open and the bar door, and a well-known citiaen had a glass in his hand containing some white liquid,, either water orgin j another resident in Lyttelton was in the large room.. Fro®, evidence, it appeared thata resident went into the bar and helpedhupelf te a di’ihfe) cTO&istiUg of p ? -

quinine bitters and water. Mr Anderson was at the time outside the bar. Mr Anderson was busy with some birds, and did not serve the resident, who helped himself. Mr Anderson made a statement that the door by which the policeman came in was the one leading into the commercial room used by the boarders, and that the bar was open because it was being cleaned out. The resident had taken the drink himslf without Mr Anderson’s leave, and had not paid for it. The Bench fined Mr Anderson £5 ss. Andrew McDonald, licensee of the Canterbury Hotel, was charged with supplying liquor and keeping his house open during prohibited hours. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for the defence. A witness named Charles Ramsay, living aboard the Seagull, stated that on Sunday last he in company with others procured several drinks from hotels in Lyttelton. He wont down the street with the constable yesterday, and it was suggested to him was it this one or that; he believed he had a drink at the Canterbury Hotel between seven or eight on Sunday morning. He had a pint of beer. He would swear he had a drink there. George Pierce, harmau of the Canterbury Hotel, swore that he was in the bar cleaning it out on Sunday morning. He remained there till after ten, and never saw witness or served him with a drink. Andrew McDonald, the licensee, gave corroborative evidence. The Bench dismissed the case. Mr Haider asked the Bench to instruct the police to proceed against the witness Ramsay for perjury. James Baldwin, licensee of the British Hotel, was also charged with having his licensed house open and supplying liquor during prohibited hours on Sunday lost. Charles Ramsay, the informer in the previous case, had also given the information in this case. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for the defence. Ramsay stated that he went into the British on Sunday morning, about nine o’clock, in company with a man without a hat, whose name he did not know, but who proposed they should go and have a drink, and then proceed to look for the hat. Ho had the drink. Could not swear whether he was sober or drunk at that time. The Bench dismissed the case. Mr Nalder urged upon the Bench that the witness should be committed for perjury, but the Bench refused to commit, stating that though the offence was not proven, still no doubt the man had obtained drink in the town that morning, and unfortunately they were aware of the extent of the Sunday drinking.