MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1283, 30 April 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, Apbil 30. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Deunk and Using Obscene Language. —The remanded charge against Elizabeth Lynch for the above offence, committed on Sunday last, was again called on. This case had been remanded from the previous day, as accused had made a serious charge against Sergeant Hughes, who arrested her. Mrs Quadrie, called by Inspector Hickson, stated that she was in accused's house on Sunday afternoon when the sergeant came in. He entered by the side door, which was open and leads into a pantry. He told them to stop making a row and went out again the way he came in. Accused followed him out, and made no complaint in witness's hearing. Had she done so witness must have heard her. Accused called her husband, Michael Lynch, who stated that the sergeant came in on Sunday, and asked a gentleman, who was with witness in the front room, who was making the noise in the kitchen. The gentleman said that all the noise that was being made was by the landlord (witness). Hughes then took accused into the wash-house, and witness followed them out and heard his wife calling the sergeant a scoundrel and blackguard. In cross-examination the witness stated that it was two o'clock when the sergeant came in. Witness, though somewhat hearty, was not yet what you would call " tight." His wife (accused) was perfectly sober. The sergeant came in by the front door without knocking, and went out by the back door. When ho went out witnees's wife followed him, and he heard her call the sergeant a scoundrel and a blackguard, and say hs had broken her arm. Sergeant Hughes recalled, stated that it was about 2.30 p.m. on Sunday when his attention was attracted to a noise going on, and obscene language being used, in accused's place in Kilmore street. He went in by a side door, which was open, and leads into a pantry. There were three women in the house and two men. Witness cautioned Lynch, and went out the same way he came in. A Mrs Pearce and Mrs Tiley had complained to him about the character of the house. On coming away accused called him a scoundrel and blackguard. As the noise continued, witness returned to the house and again cautioned Lynch. On coming that way again, accused, who was standing in front of her house, again used obscene language, and repeated the names she had previously called him. He then arrested her. She was under her fence at the time. Mrs Pearce, called, stated that she heard accused using very bad language on the Sunday afternoon. Saw Sergeant Hughes speak to her, after which he went away and walked up and down. Accused then came outside to her gate, tucked up her dress and sleeves, used fearful language to him, and told him to come in. Accused was not sober at the time. The house was very badly conducted, and witness complained to the sergeant about the rows going on in it. Mrs Tiley, who lives next door to accused, gave similar evidence. His Worship told accused that he would dismies the charge of drunkenness against her. There was no doubt whatever that she had used obscene language. Constable Hill, called, proved that accused had been convicted at Ashburton for being drunk and guilty of an act of exposure. His Worship told accused that he did not for one moment believe her statement as to what the sergeant had done. It was a trumped up story on her part, and not one witness called had corroborated her 6tory. She would be fined 40s. [Before Messrs Mellish, Harman, and Blakiston.] Slaughterhouse Licenses. James Fisher renewed his application for a license to slaughter a few animals on sec. 21, South Heathcote. The police reported that the premises were situated about 700 yards from the main road, and about the sane distance from the private residences of Captain Fisher and Mr C. Clark, who were opposed to the license being granted. The application was opposed by Mr Edwards, who contended that the Bench had no jurisdiction in this matter, as if the applicant's premises were within half a mile of the Borough of Sydenham, he would have to apply to the Borough, and if outside that distance he would have to apply to the County Council under clause 38 of the Slaughterhouse Act, 1877. He might mention that the whole of the Act had been lately brought into force by the Selwyn County Council. The Bench told the applicant that under the section of the Slaughterhouse Act cited they had no jurisdiction. It would be for him to find out what distance he was from the Borough of Sydenham, as within half a mile he would have to apply to the Borough authorities for a license. The application would have to be refused on the ground that the Bench had no jurisdiction.