MAGISTRATES' COURTS

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1261, 3 April 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS

CHEISTCHUBCir. Wednesday, April 3. [3efore G-. L. Mellisb Esq,, B.M.] Dwjnk and Gough and Mary Gough, old charged with being drunk and using eocene language, were each fined 60*, auid cau'oned not to appear in Court again. Ltjkacy from I*iNK.—C. J. changed with this o* uce , was remanded to- | lyttelton for a we<" for m edieal treatment. ■ "Larceny ok 00d s.—John Moore wagi chained with st' lir g a number of small packages of goor" beloD £ ,n S to Messrs Kempthorne and P ,Ble , r . Hl gh street. T. W.. Kempthorne, wholesale drugpist, Christchurch, staf t ' lat accused had been clerk: between foi* nd fire months in the employ of the firn "4 e leifc on Saturday last. Afterhe had Wlt . nes s received some information as nu? si f, g articles, and then gave? inform cn *<> the police. Si\ in company with eteefc ' ve . visited nccused's lodgings ,the r * OU9 evenirg, and in some boxes, p o } T d out by accused, found some account . bo , albums, stationery box, perfume |j.- es » cigar case, hair brushes, and other f .ll articles, which witness identified as the operfy of the firm. Identified them by the

the same. Valued the goods at between four and five pounds. Accused had no right to have the articles in his possession. After finding the property witness handed it over to the detective. ' Previous to the boxes being searched, accused said be had received a few of the articles from one of the travellers. He, however, afterwards admitted that he had taken them. Accused wished to be allowed to piy the value of the goods. In reply to the Bench accused admitted having taken the articles, but not with the fraudulent intent that Mr Kempthorne seemed to think. A few of them had been given to him, and the others he had taken thinking they were of little value. He regretted very much what he had done. He "had lost a situation in Wellington which ho was going to on Saturday, and he felt his prospects in life were blighted. His Worship told accused this was an instance of petty pilfering from time to time, commencing with taking a small article at first. As accused had said it was probable that his prospects in life were now blighted, and he would no doubt find it diflicuU to obtain employment in futuree"he (his Worship) did not "desire to send him to prison for a long term. He would be sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labor. Drtjnz while in Chaege of a Horse AND Cabt. —Charles Brayer was arrested for .being drunk while in charge of his horse and •cart. Constable Walker stated that accused ■was rolling in his cart the previous afternoon an Cashel street when he arrested him, and a portion of his clothes were disarranged. When he took him into custody accused became very violent, and he had to get the assistance of constable Graham to place him in a cab and take him to the depot. A large crowd collected and caught hold of the cab, inciting the accused to resist. Inspector Hi'ckson stated that when accused was brought to the depot several gentlemen whom he savT now in Court came to him and wanted to bail f'he man out. He (the inspector) went into the watch-house and saw that the man was very drunk and portion of his clothes were disarranged. He then declined to admit him to bail in the state he was in. One of the gentlemen told him that one of the constables was as drunk as the man, hut this lie found not to be the case, as the constable was as sober as any other man in the barracks. In reply to the Bench accused said that he had his leading horse tied to the back of the dray. He was going home •straight when the coi stable spoke to him, and was perfectly competent to manage his horses. Fined, 40s. Mr Berry Cass, who was in Court, told his Worship that he was an eye-witness of the whole affair, and would like to say a few words. On receiving permission to give his evidence, Mr Cass said the man was not drunk, though he had no doubt taken some drink. He saw him dragged violently off the dray, and did not wonder at bis clothes being disordered after being dragged about by two policemen in the manner he was. The man was holding the reins jtn the usual manner, and from his ready when accosted by the constable, fj/ctfuld Bee tnat ne waß not drunk. In his •opinion if a ma Q was thoroughly competent Aodo what-hehad on hand he could not be called drank. Evidence of ; the constable's treatment of the man was given by Mr R, Sutherland, by a young man in his employ, by an employee of Messrs Royse, Stead and Co., and by Messrs R. Sutherland and B. Simpson, the latter Baying that this treatment was enough to excite the ire of any ■white man. Mr Simpson also sad that the constable would have been perfectly justified in arresting the man if he had been leading after another dray instead of following. In other evidence given it was «hown that the second dray did not come up uatij after the man was arrested. Sergeant Mono* stated that about half-past five he went to the watchhouse and saw accused, who was then quite drunk. The man's face showed that he •was in that state. At ten o'ejock, when Mr Sutherland came again to bail tho man out, he was not quite sober then, but as witness beard that his wife w«« ill be allowed him to . go. Accused himself admitted that he had been drinkiDg. Constable Sriggs, watchhouse keeper, deposed to the man being drunk •when brought to the depot. Inspector Hick«on stated that when he inspected the depot at nine o'clock the man was not sober. His Worship eaid there was nothing in the evidence to show that accused was not under the influence of drink. If a constable saw a man under the influence of drink who was driving a horse and cart, it was his duty to arrest him, as not ody was the man endangering his own life, but that of ethers. He was evidently in that state when lt« depended on his horse to take him home safely. The question was one merely oi degree. So far ao the evidence went he (his Worship) could not see that the constables had exceeded their duty. Had they done so, he would certainly have taken action in the matter. Accused had certainly been under the influence of drink, should not have resisted the constable. He w <;uld be fined 10s for being drunk while iin dherge °* a horße and carfc ' and 20s iov resisting tB«? police. His Worship told Inapector Hickson that every constable should «t once be ready to give his number when .called upon. No *«ht it was very annoying 4o the constable to be .e&fid upon to give his jnumber while the man was rfcttrting Sum.