MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1449, 8 October 1878, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH, Tuesday, Octobee 8. [Before GK L. Mellish, Eaq., R.MJ Violent Assault.—John Dempsey, on remand, was charged with having, on the 27th September, violently assaulted Hugh McOlatehie. Sergeant Morice stated that McClatchie was in a very critical state in the Hospital, that he was just alive and that was all, and asked that the prisoner might be remanded from day to day. His Worship said the prisoner could bo remanded for eight days and bo brought up in the interim if necessary; bub considering the condition that McClatchie was in, bail could not bo permitted. Window Beeaking. Alfred Jauneaux was charged with breaking and damaging two panes of glass, valued at £3, the property of Margaret Haines, on Saturday night last. Margaret Haines, keeping a tobacconist and fancy goods shop, in Cathedral Square, stated that on Saturday night tho accused came in to purchase something, and he made himself very agreeable until it became time to close, when witness’s mother intimated it was time for him to go. This was shortly after eleven o’clock, and accused left. About twelve o’clock three panes of glass were broken from the outside. On Monday tho accused came and apologised and partly paid for tho damage ho had done, and promised more. Mrs Annie Collins, the mother of the last

witness, wus at her daughter’s shop on Saturday night and saw the accused there. He left shortly after eleven o’clock. Afterwards three panes of glass were broken with a brick thrown from outside. The accused was fined 40s, and ordered to pay damages £1 12s fid, and the expenses of one witness, ss. Abusive Language. —John L. Hart was charged with using abusive language to Benjamin Webb. Plaintiff and defendant were both at supper in the house of Mr Pegram, lately a butcher in the Ferry road, when a discussion arose over the supper table, and the language complained of was used. Accused denied the charge. Defendant said that Mr Pegram, who had been present, was since dead, and he was unwilling to subpoena Mrs Pegram, who was not able to come. The case was remanded until to-morrow to enable the defendant to subpoena Mrs Pegram. Larceny. —Thomas Caulfield was charged with stealing a shovel, value ss, the property of John Flannery. Mr Loughnan appeared for the accused. Mounted Constable Joseph Crockett deposed that on Saturday last he arrested the prisoner at Chaney’s Corner, about 3 p.m. Accused was at work on the railway line. On being charged with the larceny, he said he had taken the shovel in mistake for his own. Eeceived the shovel produced from the complainant at the same time. John Flannery, a navvie on the line, residing in Madras street, and working on the line at Chaney’s Corner, deposed that the accused was also working there. Left his shovel on the work on the night of September 30th. The shovel had marks on it by which he knew it. On returning to work the next morning witness missed his shovel, and afterwards found it in the hands of the accused at halfpast eight o’clock on Thursday, the day before he laid the information. On taxing the accused with having his property, he said it was his. The notches on the handle of the shovel, by which the prosecutor could identify it, had been cut away, but there was a hole in the handle by which prosecutor could identify it. Afterwards gave information to the police. Mr Loughnan addressed the Bench on behalf of the accused, contending that the prisoner’s possession of the shovel arose out of a mistake, and not from any felonious intention on his part. His Worship said it was a clear case of larceny, and sentenced the accused to seven days’ imprisonment with hard labor. Neglecting to Provide. —Morris Fitzpatrick was brought up charged with neglecting to provide his wife and five children with adequate means of support. The case had been adjourned from the previous day in consequence of the absence of the complainant. She now appeared, and said she wished to withdraw the charge. Defendant said that he had come to town and had got drunk and spent part of his earnings, had given the remainder to his wife, and subsequently got the balance of his wages, which he also gave her. Complainant said her husband did give her some money, but he spent the greater part of it in drinks. His Worship severely reprimanded the accused, and said that the law which dealt with such cases as this,was slightly altered,and the accused could now be imprisoned with hard labor. Accused said he had the promise of work, and was about to sign a contract which would give him employment for some weeks to come. On the promise of accused that if he got the contract he would give his wife an order for the money, the case was adjourned for a fortnight.