MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1496, 2 December 1878, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Decembeb 2. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M..] Dbunk and Dxsobdbely. — A first offender was fined ss. Michael Ryan, an old offender, was fined 20s. Labcenx. —Francis Orompfon, alias Cunningham, was charged with stealing a shovel, value 2s 6d, the property of John Hall. The prosecutor, a laborer, said he left the shovel at the Rising Sun six weeks ago, and said he would call for it again, but when he did so it was gone. He next saw it at the Drainage Board Works. Had neither sold it or authorised any person to take it away. John Barclay, barman of the Caledonian Hotel, formerly the Rising Sun, corroborated the evidence of the prosecutor as to the shovel being left in his charge, but he never called for it. Subsequently, when looking for it, he found that the shovel had been taken away by somebody. Richard Smith, laborer at the Drainage works, said the prisoner was working there a fortnight ago, and the shovel produced was the one he was working with. The prisoner gave an unsatisfactory account of the way he became possessed of the shovel, and as he had been previously convicted twice he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Wandeeing Hoeses and Cattle. —Peter Hyndman, Thomas Lowe, William Miller, Thomas Boresford, William Bowden, Emmanuel Hensley, George Smith, and Harvey Griffiths were fined the usual penalties of 5s for this offence. Bbeach of Haoknet Oaebxagb Act. — A. Smith was summoned for driving without a license. The offence took place on the Agricultural and Pastoral Association’s Show Grounds, on the 9th of November, and was admitted. A fine of 10s was imposed. Frank Harris, similarly charged, denied that he was driving, but only assisting John Dal wood in a case of emergency for a few minutes. The evidence of the town clerk and the arresting constable proved that the accused was driving and Dalwood was behind taking the money. A fine of 10s was imposed.

The Weoho- Side. —Frank Steele was summoned for a breach of the Public Works Act by driving on the wrong aide of the road. He waa fined 10a. Sherard Toon, similarly charged, admitted he waa on the wrong side of the road, but pulled off on to the proper side when he met with another vehicle. The evidence of the constable who laid the information, and of a witness who waa nearly driven into the drain which bordered the road, by the defendant being on hia wrong side, being taken, a fine of 10a waa imposed, The same defendant waa then charged with making use of abusive and obscene language on the occasion in question, which occurred on the 7th November. The defendant denied the language, and called his wife as a witness, who said she could kiss fifty Bibles, if necessary, that her husband ever made use of bad language before herself or her children. His Worship said, in the face of the evidence of this witness, he would dismiss the case. Bbbach of Railway By-Laws.—A. Ramsay was summoned for travelling a further distance on the railway than he had paid his fare for. W. Bowles, ticket collector at Addington, gave evidence that the defendant travelled from Leithfield to Christchurch, having only paid as far as Doyleston. The ticket was re-dated at Doyleston, and as there waa no evidence that the defendant hud any intention of evading payment, the summons was dismissed.

Assault. —Robert Anderson was charged ■with assaulting John Everill. Mr R. 1). Thomas appeared for the defendant, but there waa no appearance of the prosecutor. The case was dismissed with the costs of two witnesses, 5s each, which they desired to hand to the Orphanage. Abusive Language. —Charles Amys was summoned for making use of abusive language on the 20th of November to Henry Smith, calculated to provoke a breach of the Seace. Mr R. D. Thomas appeared for the efendant. The evidence of the complainant and two witnesses established the use of the language complained of, which took place in the Papanui Hotel, of which the defendant is landlord, and which arose out of a petty debt for drinks, which the complainant said he had been compelled to pay for twice over. The defendant was fined 20s and the costs of his two witnesses 5s each. Assault. —Collins Dobbs, a youth, was summoned for violently assaulting 0. A. Tetley, a young man, on the 24th of November. The defendant admitted striking the complainant on the head with a stone, but said that the latter had given all the provocation, and first assaulted him. A female witness, who was with the complainant, gave evidence that she saw the assault committod on him by the defendant. Defendant called two witnesses, both youths, but their evidence failed to shake the testimony of the complainant, The latter said he was continually being annoyed and insulted by the defendant and his companions, which was his reason for laying the complaint. His Worship believed the story of the complainant and fined the defendant 10s and bs 6d costs. Another similar charge against defendant’s witnesses was dismissed without being gone into, us it proved a part of the assault complained of. Maebied Woman’s Peotection Act.— Mary Griffiths applied, under the Married Woman’s Protection Act, for protection of her earnings and for the maintenance of two children, on the ground of her husband’s constant drunkenness and habitual cruelty. The defendant admitted the drunkenness but denied having been guilty of any cruelty. He was willing to turn teetotaller if his wife would return home. This she declined to do, and his Worship said, in the meantime, he should make an order for the protection of the applicant’s earnings. He pointed out to the applicant that if she left her husband she would have to support herself, and asked defendant what he could afford to pay for the support of the two children. Defendant said he could not say, and was ordered to pay 15s for the support of the children. Obscenity.— William Dayman was brought pp on a charge of wilfully and obscenely exposing his person in a public place on [Friday, July 2Blh. Mr Neck, assisted by Mr Holmes, appeared for the prisoner. Before hearing the case bis Worship said ho wished on this occasion that the public would assist justice. There would be a number of young girls called as witnesses, and there would naturally be a great deal of difficulty in the evidence with a number of men standing by. He would leave it to the good taste of the public to keep out of the Court while these witnesses were giving their evidence. [The spectators in mediately proceeded to leave t he Court, his Worship remarking that this was only what ho expected, and he thanked them very much. A 1 the witnesses left the Court likewise, with the exception of tho brotherin law of the prisoner and such as were needi d for the instruction of tlie prisoner’s counsel ] The first female witness that was called said she first saw the prisoner at about half-past two o’clock, in Hereford street, on the 26th of July, and he exposed himself, She, last Thursday, picked him out of about eighteen other persons at the pidice depot. The evidence of the first witness was corroborated in every respect by a companion who was with fier at the time the prisoner exposed his person, and she identified him as positively. Tins ■was the case, and Mr Neck addressed the Court on behalf of the prisoner, commenting

on the evidence of the witnesses, the excellent character the prisoner had always borne, and also the fact that tie had suffered from childhood from a physical complaint that necessitated his frequent retirement, when in the street, for necessary purposes, and that the action of adjusting his clothes had, in the agitation of the witnesses, been mistaken by them for an indecent exposure ; and ho then called, in defence, the mother of the prisoner. She gave evidence as to the complaint she said the prisoner had suffered from since he was a child. The Mayor of Kaiapoi being sworn, said, ho had known the prisoner fifteen years, and his conduct had always been emphtry. [Mr B. Halo had known the prisoner 10 years, and gave a similar character and similar testimony was given by Mr Lezard, who had known him since 1864. Mr Bowman of the ropoworks, who was in the prisoner’s employ, said that the prisoner was at work at the ropeworks on the 26th of November, at the hour the alleged offence was committed in Hereford street. He could swear positively to this, as he had made a memorandum in his pocket book on the day in question, which fixed the circumstance more firmly on his memory. A doubt was thrown upon the genuiness of the entry in the witness’s book from the fact that whereas he said the wages he had received from the prisoner, |and which he entered in it were 8s a day. On reference being made to the book, an entry was found of 7s 6d, which had been altered to Bs—an alteration which the witness said he had not made, and could not account for. Charles Hayman, the brother of the prisoner, deposed that from fourteen years of age he labored under the same complaint as his brother, who suffered from it extremely. He also swore positively that at the time the offence with which the prisoner was charged with committing, he was employed laying down rope while he (the witness) was working the engine. A. Corrick, brother-in-law of the prisonei, also gave the prisoner an excellent character as a good husband, and said he had never heard him utter a bad or slang word. Mr Ellen, Mayor of Kaiapoi, swore that the prisoner was one of the most honest, straightforward, trustworthy young men he had ever known, and he had been acquainted with him for eighteen years. Mr Caygill also deposed that during an acquaintance of ten years he had never heard one word against him, or even heard him utter a bad or slang word. The Rev. Mr Beck and Mr Millan spoke in similar terms of the prisoner, the latter having known him for eighteen years. Mr Neck said he had other witnesses to call, but it was only piling Ossa upon Pelion. If the witnesses who had given their evidence against him could -not be believed, nothing could. His Worxhip said that as to the character, no testimony could be higher, but the evidence as to the alibi was not eo satisfactory. He should prefer hearing the other cases if the counsel had no objection. Mr Neck had no objection to this if his Worship would allow the cases to stand over for a week and allow bail, in order that, as he (Mr Neck) had come unprepared to defend this particular charge, he might have the opportunity of calling further evidence as to the alibi. His Worship could not see the good of any delay in proceeding with the cases. Mr Neck asked that the other cases might be postponed for one day, and he would be furnished with the dates of the alleged offences, in order that he might have an opportunity of procuring rebutting evidence. His Worship said he should like to have the other cases hoard before giving judgment. He had very little doubt that the alibi was not proved as against the positive testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. The case turned principally on character, and ho should like to hear the others before coming to any decision. So far the evidence was for the conviction of the prisoner. Another case was then gone into, and the prisoner was charged with wilfully and obscenely exposing his person on the 26th of November. The Court here adjeurno I.