MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1288, 6 May 1878, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, May 6. [Before Q-. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Houses and Cattle Wandebing.— J. Tetley, J. Dermotfc, James iYinning, J. M. Garland, John Farland, Alfred Smith, John Brightling, Henry Brake, Hannah Mole, Michael Howard, Joseph Pcge, W. Willis, John Mohr, and W, Harris were severally fined 5s for allowing horses or cattle to be at large in the streets of the city and suburbs. Public Nuisance. —Thomas Harrop and Thomas M'Leary, for removing nightsoil at improper hours, were fined 10s. Fueious Dbiting. —W, C. Dickie, for driving at a furious pace on the Whately road, was fined 20s. Bbawling. —Alfred Johnston was charged with fighting in the streets. He pleaded not guilty. Mr W. Tremaine proved the offence to have been committed, in St. Aeapht street, on a night during the time that Cooper and Bailey's show was here. The defendant explained that he had just arrived from the country, when he was assaulted by a halfdrunken man formerly in his employ. He had acted in self-defence, and did his best to avoid committing an assault. Ho was fined Xon.

Public; House Obdinancb. William Maples was fined 10s for neglecting to keep Ms lamp burning during the prescribed hours. J. A. Haneman was charged with unlawfully supplying liquor, Edward O’Connor deposed to haring procured from defendant a shilling’s worth of brandy on Good Friday for Mr Taylor, who was ill. Witness met a constable on leaving the hotel. In answer to Mr Thomas, witness said that ho told defendant that Mr Taylor was sick. Had not been in Mr Hangman’s house before. Mr Taylor volunteered to give evidence for the defence, and deposed that ho was very ill on Good Friday and sent for the brandy as a medicine. The Inspector expressed himself as perfectly satisfied and withdrew the charge. J. M, Fitzgerald, the holder of a refreshment license, was charged with three offences against the Licensing Act and Publichouse Ordinance, in selling spirits without a license, lie pleaded guilty under the circumstances, and threw himself on the mercy of the Court. The spirits had been sold whilst ho was absent from home. The inspector said that one of the parties supplied was at the time under the influence of liquor. His Worship said the offence would seriously militate against defendant when applying for a renewal of his refreshment license. Defendant was fined £9. C. Klingonstein, who was defended by Mr Joynt, was charged with two offences against the Licensing Act, by his manager, Mr Hamilton, refusing breakfast to a bona fide traveller, and by selling spirits on a Sunday. William Yicker deposed that he was a coach-driver. Had sent a friend into defendant’s hotel—the Marine, at Sumner—to ask for a breakfast for himself on the 22nd April, and his friend was refused. Witness gave information to the police. Harry Reynolds, coach-driver, deposed that at the request of the last witness, he had asked Mrs Hamilton to give Dicker a breakfast, and she refused. It was on Sunday week or Sunday fortnight. Mr Joynt pointed out that the information gave the date as the 22nd, which was a Monday. The case was dismissed. The next charge was for supplying drinks on Easter Sunday. William Yicker deposed that Mr and Mrs Hamilton served the liquor at various times during the Sunday. To Mr J oynt —I live at Papanui, but went that day to Sumner, being employed by Mr Ball to drive the coach there for a fortnight. Harry Reynolds deposed that he had gone into the hotel on Sunday week, with others, and had been supplied with liquor. Mr Joynt objected that the information showed the offence to have been committed on the 21st and not the 28th. Robert Hamilton, manager of the Marine Hotel, deposed that, on Sunday fortnight, a gentleman brought in to the hotel the witnesses Yicker and Reynolds, whom he supplied with lemonade and beer. He did not think he served them more than once. He would not swear it, but would give them the benefit of the doubt and say he did not. To Mr Joynt—Reynolds lives at Sumner, but drives to Sumner and back every day, Sundays included. Mr Joynt submitted that the evidence did not disclose that alcoholic liquors had been supplied to persons not bona fide travellers. His Worship, while dismissing the case, cautioned the defendant that he had no doubt that liquor woo systematically supplied at the hotel to others than travellers.

Assaults.— J. M. Fitzgerald wa charged by Mary Anne Williamson with spitting in her face. He emphatically denied the charge. Mrs Mary Anne Williamson, who had laid information agairst defendant in cases heard that morning, deposed that, us defendant was leaving the Court, he spit in her face. Defendant called her a “vagabond,” and was threatened by the Court with punishment for contempt. Eliza Watts deposed to having seen defendant commit the offence. Defendant was fined £5 and costs, his Worship stigmatising the act as a “ blackguardly one.” William Steining was charged with assaulting James Borland. The prosecutor and George Maxwell gave evidence for the complainant. A friend of defendant deposed that no assault had been committed. His Worship dismissed the case. James Leaver and Eliza Watts were charged with assaulting Henry Hejder and John Mcllroy. Mr Thomas appeared for the prosecutors. Henry Heyder deposed to having complained to Leaver of his pigs damaging the potatoes of John Mcllroy, who was in his company. The male defendant invited them into his house to have

some beer, and when they were in the house Leaver assaulted them savagely, the female defendant assisting him. When prosecutors got out of the house and into the trap in which they had driven to defendants, Mrs Watts threw a stone which struck MTlroy in the mouth and cut his lip. Ou last Sunday morning defendant, Leaver, came to Mcllroy’s and threatened to repeat the assaults. Defendant Leaver made a statement to the effect (hat the fault was all on the other side. Dr. Durham, of Prcbbleton, deposed to MTlroy having come to him suffering from wounds which appeared to have been indicted in a row. Wounds in tho head and lip were bleeding. Erysipelas might have supervened from the former of those and the latter had to be sown up. Witness’ charge would bo two guineas. MTlroy was a cripple from chronic rheumatism, and not a man likely to go into a row willingly. John MTlroy deposed to Leaver’s pigs having damaged his potatoes and corn. He went with Heyder to defendant’s. Witness confirmed the evidence of Heyder, and in addition said that defendant endeavored to bite-his nose ; also Mrs Watts cut his head. This witness produced the stone with which Mrs Watts had cut his lip. It was about tho size of a man’s fist. Mrs MTlroy, wife of the last witness, deposed to her husband having gone to Leaver’s and returned covered with wounds cf so severe a nature that she could do nothing with them, hut sent him to the doctor. Both defendants made statements which amounted to a simple contradiction of the evidence for the prosecution. They were fined 60s each for the assault on Mcllroy, and Is each for the assault on Heyder, with costs 17s in each case; medical costs also, to tho amount of three guineas, were allowed to the medical man. Rehearing,—J. M. Fitzgerald applied for a rehearing of the charge of assault which had been made against him, as ho had a witness to prove that Mrs Wafts had not been whore she had sworn she was. His Worship having consented, Mr Thomas called the daughter of defendant, who deposed that Mrs Williamson had been sitting on a box in the anteroom when her father left the Court. Mrs Watts was not in the room. Witness was just behind her father, and did not see him spit in Mrs Williamson’s face. While Mrs Williamson was giving evidence as to tho assault, witness heard Mrs Watts say, “ I believe she is telling the truth,” and afterwards she said “I will swear I saw it done.” The magistrate did not see any reason to alter his decision. He had just been informed that a constable had seen the two women sitting next to each other. Insulting Language.— Robert Patton was charged with using insulting language to James Crowley on Easter Monday at the Agricultural Show Grounds. Mr Thomas appeared for the defence. Prosecutor and Charles Thompson gave evidence for the complainant, and Mrs Thompson for the defendant. The Bench fined defendant 20s and costs 19s. Destitute Persons Relief Act,— John Henry Hart was charged by his wife Harriet with having neglected to provide means for her for the last six months. Complainant deposed that defendant was well able to provide for her. The Bench ordered defendant to pay los a week. Protection of Animals Act. —William Hyam, James Hyam, and Frederick Kay were charged with trespassing with dog and gun in the neighbourhood of the river Styx. David Douglas, ranger, deposed to having seen the defendant on April with a gun each and a dog on a farm near the Styx. Witness found no game in their possession. One shot had been fired before witness came to| them. They left the land immediately they were told. They gave witness wrong names. For the defence it was stated that they had shot only one swamp hen, which they believed was in season. The Bench warned them that they were liable to heavy penalties for trespassing, but as they had not shot any game, and the day was Easter Monday, he would fine them only 20a each, with costs 9s, to be divided between them. Adam M'Connell, William Mulholland, Samuel Reed, and Charles Leach were charged with using dogs in pursuit of game on the 21st April without a license. David Douglas, ranger, deposed to seeing defendants coursing on Matson’s river bed with four dogs. To Mr Thomas —I saw them coursing a hare. It was on an island, surrounded by four dogs, and the three men, Mulholland, Leach, and M'ConmTl. I know a rabbit from a hare, and am sure it was a hare by its jumping, though I was fifteen chains away. It might have been more than fifteen chains. The men were clapping their hands and encouraging the dogs. To Inspector Hickson— Reed gave the other men notice that I was coming. For the defence Mr Thomas called Samuel Reed, who deposed that tho defendants had merely gone to see if the pigs had broken away. They had dogs with them, but had no intention of coursing. There were lots of hares. M’Connell’s dog went after one. It was no use calling him back :is it was a greyhound. The dog was called back and returned after he had lost the hare. Crossing M’Connell’s paddock the dog went after another hare, but did not kill. To Inspector Hickson —Wo heard the ranger call, but did not stop for him. We did not run away. People like to keep out of rangers’ way even though they are doing no harm. The other defendants gave similar evidence. Mr M‘Connell, senior, father of one of the defendants, and Mr Tubman, a farmer living near Fendalltor, gave evidence for the defence. The Bench while expressing satisfaction that the ranger had brought the case forward dismissed it as there evidently had been no intention to course on the part of the defendants. George Derritt was charged with setting a snare for the purpose of taking game, without being duly authorised for that purpose, contrary to the statute. John Dowdle, of Papanui, was called, and deposed that he had by way of a joke told Ranger Douglas that he could guess who had set snares. It was not true that defendant had. The Bench hoped that the accused would make witness pay for the loss of his time ; "he would dismiss the case. Licensing. —The application for transfer of the license of C. Kiingestein, for the Marine Hotel, Sumner, to William Hamilton, postponed from last week, was duly granted. LYTTELTON. Saturday, May 4, [Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness. —An inebriate who made his first appearance at the Court was fined 10s. Using Insulting Language towards the Police. —Charles Walker was charged by constable Bullen with the above offence. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for the defendant. From the evidence it appeared that defendant and two others were standing at the corner of London street on the previous evening, and that defendant made use of an expression which the constable imagined was applied to him. The constable asked defendant what he had said and defendant repented tho sentence, Constable said that was not whnt he had said previopsly, and warned him to leave tho street. Subsequently defendant met the constable and asked for his name or number, whereupon ho (defendant) wag arrested and taken to the police station. The defendant charged the constable with having assaulted him by arresting him, and called two witnesses!] who stated that tho words made use of were not intended to apply in any way to the police, and that defendant did not insult tho constable. The Bench dismissed tho charge aErainsc Walker, and ordered tho constable to pay the Court costa, ss.