MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1544, 30 January 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH, Tnr?.suay, January 30 . [Refute 0. Whiter cord, Esq,, R.M., G. L„ Lee cr.fi -T. P. Jamttfon, Esqs,, J.P.’s.]

D cun if and Disorderly.—A first offender was fined as. William McGill, in addition tobeing drunk, was charged with using obscene language in a public place imd wilfully destroying pi ivafe property, value £2, belonging to John Gomers J. Constable iDcoks gave evidence as to the drunkenness ana obscene language, and the injury to property c<> n " shied in breaking two windows in the cab P* John Gomersal, a cabman, whom he had employed to take him home. The witness Q-omorse-1 also stated that when he demanded his f ire the accused abused him, gave him a black eye, and tore his coat. The accused offered the usual plea of drunkenness as an excuse for bis conduct. The cabman stated the amount of the damage done to his cab was 10s, and 30s for his coat r which was torn all to pieces, 4s cab hire, and 2s for bringing him to the Court. His Worship lectured the accused, and fined him JOs for the first offence, 20s or 48 hours’ imprisonment for using obscene language, and for the destruction of property 20s, and 46s costs ; and in default of payment 21 days’ imprisonment. Ellen Boyle, charged with being drunk and disorderly, was fined 40s, or Ofi hours’ imprisonment. Illegally on Pbkmises. —Charles Evansand John Nagle were brought up for being illegally 6n the premises of John Barrett, the licensee of tbs Borough Hotel. The prosecutor stated that he had found the two defendants sleeping in his stable. He did not desire so much to press the charge as to makeit a warning to others, Therv was straw in his stable, and ho thought it was » dangerousthing for persons indiscriminately' to sleep there. His Worship, after lecturing the defendants, discharged them with a caution, on their promising to go up country and work. Embezzlement. —Peter James Fowler was again charged with embezzling 2s, the proparty of the Government. There were two other charges of embezzling 2s 2d and Is. Mr Duncan, as on the previous day, prosecuted for the Government, and Mr Izard appeared for the accused. Mr Izard again asked for a certificate of discharge, citing authorities in support of ’ ilia application* His Worship said the point was whether the new information was identical with the one that was dismissed yesterday. The information which had been dismissed was for embezzling one sum of 2s 2d ; the fresh information contained three separate sums, which, the accused was charged with embezzling. If ih> certifies e tf discharge was granted by the Court on the one charge of embezzling 2s 2d, could Mr Izard apply for a certificate of discharge on the two others which were in ti e fresh information. Mr Izard said the case had been heard upon its merits, and the Court was not entitled to assume that the station-master of Kaiapoi could give evidence which would criminate the accused. Thespirit of the law was that the accused washeld to be innocent, and the evidence of the-station-master might be in favor of the accused. The case had been fully gone into,, finally closed, and then dismissed. The Crown had no power to call any fresh witnesses after that. There were three courses open toftheCourt, namely, committal for trial, summary conviction, and dismissal of the information,. Tiie last course had been adopt ed, and therefore t he certificate of discharge should be given* Mr Duncan replied, opposing the granting of a certificate of discharge on the grounds that tho whole of the merits of the case has not been heard ; that the information was an entirely different one to that which hud been dismissed, and that the case for the defence had not even been entered on, and no witnesses called, the 21st section of the Act requiring that the case should be hoard in both parts before it could be dismissed. The Bench ruled that the case had not been heard upon its merits, inasmuch as the law jo paired that the Justices should hear both sides of the case, which had not been done, the information having been dismissed on a technical point. The case might be treated as a summary case, but the accused was not entitled to a cerl ifieate. The case was then proceeded with. Be! ore going on with th& ease Mr Izard said there was a most important witness, whose evidence w3s most material to his client. The witness wgs not present, but would have been had ho b.?* n

Btnfc for; the absence was involuntary, arid he must ask for an adjournment. The Court said the evidence of t he witnesses present had better he taken first, and the ease temporarily adjourned afterwards if necessary. Mr Back, general manager of the railway department,, being sworn, said the accused was a guard on> the railway, stationed on the Kaiapoi lino. His duties were to take charge of the train’ between Bemiet’s Junction and Kaiapoi. Theda! ies were attending to passengers, parcels,, luggage, &c., and seeing that passengers paid their fare. There was no station at Jackson's road. It was the duty of the accused to collect the fare. He was supplied with a lime table showing the mileage between the various points, and had to calculate therefrom. the amount of faro to bo paid by the passengers. The witness described the method of issuing the tickets as stated by the witnesses on the first hearing of the case. It was the duty of the accused to account nightly to the Kaiapoi station master for all moneys received by him during the day, the station-master in turn accounting periodically for his receipts. Previous to being a guard, the accused had been a ticket seller. Mr Duncan put in the ordinary railway regulations. Mr Izard objected, but the objection was overruled. Alexander Fife, accountant in the railway department, repeated Ilia evidence of the previous day. Wm. Burke, station-master at Kaiapoi, said lie had been in that capacity three months. The accused was a guard bet ween Kaiapoi and Oxford. The guard’s duties were again defined, and the witness said the money received by the accused should be given to him nightly. Witness kept a book in which wasrecorded all moneys received from the guards. All entries were initialed in this book in their presence. This book contained no entries on on the 3rd, 4th, or Bth of January of 2s 2d, 2s, or Is, the latter from Kaiapoi to Ohoka. The accused had never accounted to him for any of those sums. From the 16th November to January 17th had received no money from any of the guards. The moneys had been received by subordinates in the station, and initialed by them. Charles Lewis gave hie evidence over again, and was cross-examined at great length by Mr Iz ird with a view to show that he was mistaken in his dates. The Court was of opinion that his evidence was unshaken. Mr Whitcfoord here left the Bench, The next witness called was James Watt, who repeated his evidence of the previous day as to the payment by tbe last witness of 2s fid to the accused on January 3rd, out of which he received 4d in change, and also a payment on his own account of 2s, no ticket being given in either instance by the accused. He also made another payment on January Bth to the accused of Is for a journey from Kaiapoi to Ohoka. Cross-examination by Mr Izard failed to shake the evidence of the witness as to the dates he had deposed to. Thomas I). Edmunds, chief clerk in the railway department, next repeated his evidence as to the duties of the railway guard on the n alter of excess tickets. At. this stage Mr Duncan asked for a remand for a week owing to the absence of a material witness who was on leave of absence, and could not be brought hack under that time. Tbe accused was further remanded until (ho. fith of February, the same bail being allowed.

LYTTELTON. Thursday, January 30. [Before W. Donald and li. Ah weight, EsqsJ Deserting. —D ivid Burns, a youth, ordinary seaman on board the brigantine Star, was, on the testimony of Captain Day, sentenced to throe days’ imprisonment for deserting. Profanity and Drunkenness.—George Cunningham, a person who has done several terms in gaol for what he pleases to cull “epileptic Ills,” was fined 20s or 48 hours for drunkenness, ~nd IS hours with hard labor for using profane language. Margaret Buchanan, u confirmed tipler, was fined 20s or 48 hours.