MAGISTRATES' COURTS

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1530, 13 January 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS

CIIEISTCHUKCir. Monday, Janixaey 13. [Before Dr. Back and C. T. Ick, Esq., J.P.'s] DbiTNK AND DIBOBDEBI.Y.—CharIes Evans was Cued 10s. Two first offenders wore fined us each. Lunacy from Dbink, —J>. no Hooper was remanded to AddingU.ii Gaol for medical trc-a'inonfc. LaeCKNY. —Matthew Longden was charged with stealing the following articles, namely, a pair of sleeve- links, a silver match box, a silk pocket handkerchief, mud Is Gi in money, the property of Edward Brown. There was a second charge of stealing a watch of tho value of £5, the property of William Mason. The prisoner pleaded guilty. Mr Inspector Hiekson s:iid the prisoner stole the articles last Saturday night from the Terminus Hotel, where he was temporarily assisting the servants. For the first offence, tho accused was sent to gaol for three months, and for tho ceeond six months, with hard labor, in each case. Stealing Bkandy.—George Gilbert Rolles'on was charged with stealing a bottle of brandy, value <is, the property of George Beatty. The b.irman of the 'Palace Hotel ► aid the brandy was stolen by the prisoner from the bar on Saturday night last.. It was taken whilo his back was turned, He had

previously missed a bottle of whisky, which caused hiin to watch the prisoner, and he saw him Btowing away a bottle of brandy, which ho had taken from a shelf. The witness reported the circumstance to Mr Beatty, and detained the prisoner. Constable Allen proved the arrest of the prisoner at half-past 9 o'clock on Saturday night. Tho prisoner said he had bought the brandy at the QCE Hotel. Tho prisoner in answer to the Bench denied tho theft, and said he took tho bottle of brandy with him into the Palace Hotel, where he had gono in lor a drink. Tho Bench disbelieved the prisoner's statement and sentenced him to a week's imprisonment with hard labor. Cattle Trespass.—James Giltrow, George Smith, John Williamson, John Trudgoon, and Alfred Wright were fined 5s each tor allowing horses to wander at large. Wm. J. White and Findley Ross were fined 10s and costs each. „ , _ . Cruelty to an Animal.—Charles Parker was summoned for cruelly ill treating a horse. The case had been before the Court before. The defendant now admitted that while in a etate of intoxication he had unduly beaten a horse which constituted the offence with which he was charged. A fine of 20s was inflicted. Causing an Obstruction.—Hans Savage was summoned for causiag an obstruction on the South town belt, by allowing his horse and cab to remain thereon. At the request of the defendant, the case was adjourned for a week for the production of a witness. Breach of Publiciiouse Ordinance.— M. H. Oram was summoned for keeping his licensed house open during prohibited hours. On the application of the Inspector of Police the case was adjourned for a week. Rescuing Cattle.—John Oollett was summoned for rescuing four head of oattle from Edward Evans on December 241 h. Mr Izard appeared for the defendant. The complainant deposed that on the day in question he had seized the eattlo of the defendant for the purpose of impounding them. He took them from tho Canal reserve. Defendant and his children rescued the cattle, and the formor threatened him with violence if he took the beasts away. Henry Evans corroborated the evidence of the last witness. John Collett, the defendant, said that when he bought his land, which adjoined the Canal reserve, ho had permission from the chairman of the Road Board to graze his cattle on the reeerve as compensation for partly clearing it and keeping it free from thistles. He believed he had a perfect right in allowing his cattle to remain there, and that Evans had no right to impound his cattle. The case was adjourned for a week. A similar complaint was laid against Joßeph Cooksley for rescuing two head of cattle. The prosecuting witnesses were the same as in the previous case, and the evidence very similar. The cattle had been seized on the canal reserve by Henry Evans, and Edward Evans again corroborated him. The eattlo were grazing at the time they were seized. Mr Izard contended that the prosecutor never had possession of the cattle, and consequently they could not have been rescued. He called the defendant and his son to prove that the latter was driving the cattle when the prosecutor Evans came up, and the latter was never in possession of them. Another Bon of the defendant gave similar testimony. The Bench held that the offence had been proved, and a fine of £5 was inflicted, tho Bench stating that it would have been mitigated had the defendant not struck the complainant's horse when he took the cattle. John llorler was bJbo summoned for rescuing three head of cattle on December 22nd. After hearing the particulars of the case, and the evidence of the various witnesses, the Bench decided that the offence had not been proved, and tho case was dismissed with a caution to the defendant as to where he allowed hie cattle to graze for the future. There was a similar complaint against Richard Off wood for rescuing a cow on December 19th. The defendant called three witnesses to prove that there had been no rescue, and the case was dismissed with costs, tho defendant being also cautioned as to where he allowed his cattle to grnze for the futuro, and to bo especially careful how he interfered with any one having legal authority to impound cattle. Assault. William Elacklor was summoned for using abusive and threatening language to John Trott on January let, and also with itriking him on the same occasion. The offence was admitted, and the defendant was fined 20s on the double charge. Doa Trespass.—John Hill was fined 10s for allowing his dog to wander in tho Park. Maintenance. Thomas King was informed against for neglecting to provide his wifo and five children with adequate means of support. The complainant said her husband was a clerk. He drank to excess, which was the cause of their trouble. He earned £2 a week, and she would be contented if she had an allowance of 25s per week for the support of herself and children. An order was made for the defendant to pay £1 per week for the Bupport of his wife and family. Abusive Language.—James Gardner and Rose Gardner were summoned for using abusive and threatening language to Richard Clark on October 29th. Mr Slater appeared for the complainant, and Mr Joyce for the defendants. The complainant said that on October 29th Mr and Mrs Gardner came to his house and accused him of poisoning their dog. Mrs Gardner, on that occasion, said they could not " take it out" of him legally, but they would smash his head and otherwise illuse him. This was the language complained of. He had laid poison about lub premises for the purpose of destroying his own cats, which were in the habit of killing his pigeons. He had no intention of injuring the defendants' dog, and he had cautioned his neighbours generally about the poison. William Clark, son of the complainant, remembered the defendants visiting his father's house on the occasion of the alleged abusive language. Defendant's wife said they knew they could not take it out of him (complainant) by law, but they would out of his " old skull." The male defendant was sworn in his own defence, and stated that he was a theatrical agent resident in Cbristchurch. He had known defendant three years and had employed him once as a chocktaker. Some months ago he had some dogs poisoned, but he was not then in Christchurch. Subsequently he was told the complainant Clark had poisoned them. Did not visit the complainant's house on October 29th. On that day he was in Timuru, which he could prove by the advertisement be produced. Had seen the complainant previous to the 28th of October, and reproached him for poisoning j his dogs. Might have been excited at the time, but certainly did not use language that could be considered abusive or threatening. On that occasion tho complainant admitted he had laid the poison for the cats, and was sorry if it had destroyed his (defendant's) dogs. Was confident his wife did not make use of any vio'ent or abusive language. He told complainant he had done a paltry and mean action in destroying his dog. Mrs Gardner was sworn, and corroborated her husband's evidence as to his being absent from Christchurch on the 29th of October. The witness denied using the language attributed to her when in company with her husband, she visited the complainant. She had said no more than that he was noted for poisoning people's dogs. They had boen seen coming from his yard. This was tho case, which was dismi-ised. Thcro was a cross summons against tho defendant for using abusive and threatening language to Robo Gardner on November 2nd. Ou that day the complainant followed a monkey, which had got to the defendant's house. Ihe hitler struck the monkey with a pole, and tho complainant said " Don't kill the monkey, but poison it as jou did tho dog." On that occasion the defendant culled her filthy names, and said he would kill her and her monkey too. She wished tho defendant bound over to keep the peace. She was not under any fear of bim, and had only brought the present proceedings in conseauence of tho notion which had been taken by the defendant in summoning her and her husband. The defendant in this case was put on hia oath, and admitted endeavoring to knock the monkey off the house, but did not ii jure it in any way. He positively denied calling the wmplain-.int the opprobrious names she hud sworn to. In crofs-examini-tion the witness admitted that although tho complainant, Mrs Gardner, hud visited him on the 29th October, and again on (lie 2nd [November, he did not kmw her from any other woman, A witness named William

Hill, called by the defendant, remembered the monkey incident on the 2nd November, and on that occasion the complainant called the defendant a whit,- lu-aded old wretch, and threatened to set the monkey at him. The defendant had previously threatened to kill the monkey. This w.ts the case which was also dismissed, each party paying their own costs. LYTTELTON. Monday, January 13. [Before H. E. Webb, and H. Allwright, Esq., J.P's.] Drunk and Assaulting a Constable.— John Burns, a seaman, yesterday got drunk, and whilo in that condition assaulted Constable Creighton, who at once arrested him. Thomas Petersen, a mate of Burns, attempted to rescue him from the policeman, to all of which the constable testified, whereupon the Bench fined Burns 20s, and Petersen 10s, or, in default, eighty-four and forty-eight hours in gaol respectively. Attempting to Desert. —John Smith and Charles Stenborn, seamen belonging to tho barque Corinna, were, on tho testimony of Captain Williams, sentenced each to seven days, with hard labor. Refusing to Work. —Bernhard Cursey this morning refused the lawful commands of Captain Babot, on board the ship Hydaspes, by saying to the captain, "No tobacco, no work." He was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment.