MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1395, 5 August 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHEISTCHURCH. Monday, August 5. [Before a. L. Meliish, Esq., R.M.]

Drune: and Disorderly.—John Parker was liued 20s, having been previously convicted; William Sharkey and G-eo. Trimble were each fined 10;i; and a number of first offenders were fined 5s each.

Profane Language.—Arthur Thompson, alias Perkins, admitted tho offence, and was fined 10s.

Illegally on Premises.—Charles Smith and Q-eorge Williams were charged with being illegally on tho premises on Mr Johnsou, i» the Papanui road. The prisoner, it appeared from the evidence given, had been previously hanging about the premises, and sleeping in a straw stuck. A sentence of twenty-four hours' hard labor was imposed. Robbkry with Violence.—John Dempsey and William Hart was charged with this offence. Peter Johnston, the prosecutor, was present in Court, but was not placed in the witness box. Mr R. D. Thomas appeared on behalf of tho accused. Inspector Hickson said there was not a shadow of a charge against the prisoners, as tho property which they wero charged with Btesling was found careiully concealed on the premisos of the prosecutor. His Worship severely reprimanded the prosecutor for his conduct, and said lie had no doubt of the falsity of the charge. The accused were at once discharged.

Ebeach op City By-Laws. Earnest Ford, for driving on tho ■ wrong side, was fined 10s.

Using Abusive Language. W. 11. Langford was summoned by Thomas Lewis for using abusive language to him on the 30th u't. in tho Springfield road. There was a contra summons against Lewis for assaulting Langford on the su.ino day. After hearing the evidence in each case, Lewis was fined 20s, and tho case against Langford dismissed. Larceny.—Peter Johnston was charged with stealing a tumbler, the property of Mr Cookson. The accused said he had engaged Mr Izard but he was not in Conrt. The case was adjourned while Mr Izard was sent for. After some interval the case was proceeded with, and John Dempsey, a barman at Mr Coobson'a, said at halt-past ten o'clock on Thursday night last, he saw the prisoner take a tumbler from the counter, «!•(! put it down by his side. Previously he had two drinks in the house, but had refused to pay for them. He followed him out, and took a tumbler and a glass out of his pocket. lie then put tho glasses back into the bar, and acquainted Mr Cookson with the circumstances. The prisoner was not drunk, but knew thoroughly what he wns doing. Subsequently he (witness) was arrested at tho instance of the prisoner on a charge of highway robbery with violence. William Hart deposed ho was in the hotel the same night. The prisoner was there and sober. He shouted, but could not pay for the drinks, and they were taken back again. The attention of witness was called to the fact of a tumbler being in tho p Honer's possession. Ho followed him out,. and took a large tumbler out of his pocket near Mr Mann's shop. Prisoner struggled with him and van away. In tho morning heard that Dempsey was in custody for robbery, and he (witness) came and gave himself up too. Could not say whether tho prisoner had a watch on him, but he remembered seeing a steel guard hanging from his

vest. Mr Cookson identified the tumbler produced as his property ; it was worth about Is 6d. Constable Cullen deposed that on Thursday night the prisoner came to the Police Depot, and complained that he had been robbed by Dempsey and Hart. He accompanied him to the Garrick Hotel, and then the tumbler was missed. Prisoner apparently had been drinking, but was not drunk. He said he had been robbed of a watch and chain. Detective Walker said he saw Johnston on the Friday morning, and he explained to him minutely all the particulars of the robbery. Ho went to the prisoner's house with Detective Benjamin and searched for the watch. He found it in a bag which the prisoner's wife was endeavoring to conceal. The watch was the one Dempsey and Hart had been accused of stealing. Mr Thomas pressed for as heavy a sentence as it was in the power of the Court to pass, characterising the conduct of the priBoner in preferring such a charge as he hid done against Dempsey and Hart, as most atrocious. His Worship severely reprimanded him, and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment with hard lobor. Illegitimate Child. —Hugh Shanks was summoned for refusing to support the illegitimate child of Sarah Hall, of which she alleged he was the father. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for the prosecutrix, and Mr B. D. Thomas for defendant. Sarah Hall gave evidence that the intimacy between her and Shanks commenced eleven months ago, at a ball at Doyleston. The child was born on the 27th of June last. Margaret Hall, the mother of the prosecutrix, gave evidence as to the intimacy of her daughter with the defendant. Joseph Hall proved that the defendant had been in the habit of coming to his house and keeping company with his daughter. The defendant, Hugh Shanks, being called, said that he and the prosecutrix j had never kept company. She had forced her company on him on the night of the ball at Doyleston. She was keeping company with two other men. Had never promised to marry her. Mr Thomas addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant, pointing out discrepancies in the evidence of complainant, and contending that the alleged date of her intimacy with the defendant was incompatible with that of the birth of tho child. Judgment was given for the defendant. Neglecting to Stjppoet.—Alfred Nottingham and Thomas Nottingham were summoned for neglecting to support their father. Alfred Nottingham said he had a wife and three children to support, and his father was in better circumstances than himself. Thomas Nottingham stated that he had been in the habit of sending his father money whenever he asked for it, and he could not see why he should be summoned. The complainant stated that he was a widower, and was unable to work. He hnd a little boy living with him, but he could earn nothing. He had a tworoomed house of his own in which he lived, but had no other resources. Each of the defendants said (hut when in employment they earned 7s a day, but they were not in constant employment. An order was made against Thomas Nottingham to pay 6s a week towards his father's support, but no order was made against his brother, in consideration of his having a wife and family. John Eiley was summoned for neglecting to provide his wife, Harriett Eiley, and her two childron, with adequate means of support. The defendant pleaded inability through lack of employment. On being asked why he did not live with his wife, he referred the Court to the past charge sheets. Tho Court declined to make any order in the case of the wife. Complainant said she could earn her own living by going out to service, but could not support the children. In answer td the Court she stated that one of the children was four years old, and the ether fourteen months. She had had a protection order in last December, and an order for 15s a week for her, and her children's support. His Worship said that must have been before ho knew the circumstances of the case. He should now make an order for defendant to pay 7s a week, as it was evident the complaintant could support herself. L. Neilson was similarly charged with refusing to support his wife, Deborah Neilson. The defendant made a rambling incoherent statement that it was a case between the Freemasons and Roman Catholics, and couldn't be settled without a Judge. Alfred Thomas Moss said the defendant was employed by him ; he earned a shilling an hour as a carpenter, and with the exception that he was eccentric on the matter of Freemasonry, was otherwise quiet and inoffensive. His Worship said defendant could take proceedings for the interference of a Judge if he liked, but in the meantimo he must support his children. It appeared to be a case for medical examination, and in the meantime the question of providing for the child ren would be postponed until the decision of two doctors as to tho state of the defendant's mind waa given. [Left sitting.]

LYTTELTON. Monday, August 5. [Before Dr. Donald, R.M.] Assault. —James Anderson, boatswain of the brig Fawn, was charged with assaulting Captain Veel, master of that vessel. He was sentenced to twelve weeks' imprisonment with hard labor. ______^_^____