MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1547, 3 February 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH Monday, Fkbruaky 3. (Before G-.JL. Lee, Esq., and Dr. Buck, J.P.'s] Dbtjnk and Disomdf.ely Two first offenders were fined 5s each. John Woodard and William Thompson were fined 5s having appeared before the Court previously, and Charles Evans, an old offender, was sentoi cad to one month's imprisonment. Obscene Exposure —John Duncan was charged with wilfully and indecently exposing hi 9 person in a public place. There was another charge, of making use of obscene language. Mr James Edward Lane stated that the previous day (Sunday) his attention was drawn by his little boy to the conduct of the accused, which was of a very gross character. On the witness remonstrating with liim on his behaviour the accused made uso of the language with which he was charged. The witness then went for a policeman and gave him into custody. The charge of using obscene language was dismissed, and for the indecent exposure he was sent to gaol for Co month with hard labour. Peesonating a D'itkotivb. -Archibald Moorhead was charged with endeavouring to impose on a private individual by a false representation with a view to obtain a benefit or advantage. Mr Thomas appeared for the accused. James Baker, a seaman by profusion, stated that he was walking in the Park on the 10th of January with a female acquaintance, and they sat down to rest themselves. The aecused, with another man, accosted them, and represented that he was a detective officer and he intended to put a stop to immoral practices in the park. Some further conversation ensued, the accused insinuating that he (the witness) was conducting himself improperly. The accused said he was a di'feKive, and was looking after the Pa>-k. lie also struck a light, and said " he would see further info this." Either the aceuped or his companion said "I will not be hard on you." The witness gave his name, but declined to give that of his companion, as she was a respectable girl. The woman who was witii the last witness gave corroborative evidence, and swore that it was the accused made uso of the expression " I'll not bo hard on you." Detective Walker deposed that, previously to arresting accused, the latter mid " Poi'h ! I only did il for a lark." M>'J.hoinas 6a 'd that, although a f'ahe representation had ccrt.iinly been made, the defendants had or'ly acted foolishly and with a view oi clucking what thev conndi red an improper net. on i.iu- part oi ihe p*oeecutor and his witness. The cse was dismissed, the Bench cautioning the accused to be more careful how he personated a detective again. Assaulting a Bailiff.—Frederick Peiper was summoned for assaulting William Gros-

noil, assistant bailiff in fcho Resident Magistrate'* Court, Chrittshurch, while in the execution of liis duty. Mr Neci appeared for the defendant, and admitted the commission of the assault, which was oi' a trifling nature and committed in a momentary break of temper which lie now regretted. Mr MeKnight said lie did not wish to press for a penalty, but persons mutt know that a bailiff, in the execution of his duty, must be protected. The Bench dismissed the charge on payment of costs. Illegally Slaughtering. ThomasHick ling was informed against by the Inspector of Slaughter Yards for illegally slaughtering cattle on his premises contrary to the ordinance. The defendant's premises are si! rated in Armagh street east, and the slaughtering had been done in a shed at the back of Ida promisee The defendant had a slaughtering licensee last year, but had not renewed it, for tho present one. A witnesscalled by the Inspector said he had cautioned the defendant on two occasions for slaughtering a calf and two sheep on his premises, and he replied that he might do his best and his worst. A line of -l-Os was imposed and the costs of two witnesses. Abusive and ThbbateSing Language. —John Dalwood was summoned for using abusive and threatening language to Edmund Cogan. Mr J. S. Williams appeared for the complainant, and Mr Neck for the defendant. Mr Williams stated that the circumstances arose out of a debt due by the complainant, a reporter ori the "Lyttelton Times," to the defendant, a cabman. The former had borrowed £5 from tho defendant, and subsequently had been compelled by unfortunate circumstances to file a declaration of insolvency. He had since been repeatedly asked by the defendant, in an insulting manner, for payment of the money, but had not paid it, as, on inquiry, he found he could not do so legally. Tho complainant said that, on the> 9th of January, he was mot twice by the de* f'endant, and on the second occasion he asked for payment of the money, and threatened to tea? the coat off his back. He (complainant) said he would be very glad to pay the money if the lavr permitted him, but he had had legal advice and had been told he must not make a preferential creditor of him. The complainant stated to the Bench that ho would be very glad to pay the £5 which he admitted owing, and he was in a position to pay, but he had been informed by his legal adviser that he could not do so at present. He had frequently been met by the defendant who took every opportunity of insulting him before the other cabmen, and ho was afndd that defendant being ol an ungovernable temper he would some time or other take advantage of him, and ho wanted to he protected. On the 24th of January he was again met by the defendant who, on that occasion, repeated the language complained of, and further added that he would take every opportunity of "sticking, him up" and insulting him. The witness wa* cross examined at some length by Mr Neck,, but he only elicited the fact that he owed the money, was willing to pay it when he could do so legally, but that would not be until ha> had obtained his certificate which had been detained through the proceedings being protracted by the death of his trustee. _ E. H. Brooker, a cabman called by Mr Williams, remembered hearing high words on January 9th in Cathedral Square between complainant and defendant, but could not distinguish what was said. Dalwood, the defendant, afterwards told him that the complainant was going to summon him. The defendant was put into the box, and sworn on his own behalf. He denied using abusive language on the 9th or 24th January. He admitted asking the complainant for the money which he had lent him, and had certainly said if he did not pay him he would ask him for it wherever and wherever he met him. Was aware that the defendant had filed his schedule, but only by his own statement. He had promised to pay it repeatedly, but had never done so. Had told the complainant he was willing to . f ake it at 5s a-week. He certainly had threatened to kick the complainant on one occasion, but it was after being insulted by him. Mr Williams having addressed the Bench, the defendant was cautioned that although he had a right to ask for his money in a proper manner, he must not stop a man in tho street and insult him. He would be fined 10s and costs, but on Ins promising to refrain for the future from insulting the complaint he would not bo bound over to keep the peace. Frank Lewis was summoned for using abusiveand insulting language towards John H. Squire, calculated to provoke a hrcich of the peace, on the ISth January. Mr Slater appeared for the complainant, and Mr Perceval for the. defendant. John H Squire stated that on January 18th the defendant abused him in front o'f Mr Bashlord's shop in Colombo street. He had been in partnership with the defendant, but the partnership was now dissolved. Mr Bashford, being sworn, t'aid he remembered talking to the complainant in front of his shop on the night of January ISth. The defendant came up with his wife, and addressing the complainant, said, " Yow b wretch, I'll break your b neck." He repeated this with variations. The defendant gave his version of the affair,, from which it appeared that the circumstances had arisen out of their previous business relations, which had not been of a pleasant or profitable character to the defendant. Th* defendant was fined 10s and coats. Assault.—Prank Lewis appeared to answer a charge of assaulting Richard Clarke on the 14th January. Mr Neck appeared for tho complainant. The latter stated—On the night of the day in question he was in the defendant's "shop, in company with, tho complainant in the last case, who was a friend of his, and the defendant put him out by his shoulders and abused him afterwards. John H. Squires corroborated the evidence of tho complainant. Albert Williams said he was outside the shop of the defendant, and heard some bad language made use of, but saw no assault committed. Constable Branmont said he was called by Mr Lewis into his shop about three weeks ago to turn a man out. He went with the defendant into the shop, but saw no assault committed. Lewis told Clarke to go out, and he went out. Clarke never stated afterwards to him that he had been assaulted. Constable Harold slated that about three weeks ago, about nine o'clock, he was asked by Mr Lewis to accompany him to his shop to remove a man. He and Constable Kerr went with Mr Lewis, and found Clarke and Squires, tho former partially drunk, in the shop. Lewis asked Clarke to go out, and as he refused, he put him out by the shoulders, using no more violence than was necessary in the operation. Constable Kerr corroborated this evidence, and the case was dismissed with costs. Assault.—Elizabeth Stevenson was sum. moned for violently assaulting a lad named J. C Steer on January 30th. The complainant, who is employed by Mr F. P. Deßeer, remembered on the afternoon of tho day named in the information seeing a little girl, the daughter of Mrs Stevenson, a neighbor, gathering plums from a tree in Mr Deßeor's garden. He took the child in his arms and carried her in to Mr Deßeer, in his house, and he said, " Let her go." He let the child go, and she was lifted over the fence that separates the two gardens by another girl. Mrs Stevenson threatened to break his head, and struck him on the head with a stone, which she threw at him. The child was designated Edith. Tho witness had some diffioulty in identifying in tho Court the girl that ho alleged took the fruit, as two Bisters were present;, the eldest of whom could not have been more than five or six years of age, and the youngest about three. Mr Deßeer suid he had a house in Armagh street east, and a garden containing fruit which, as it was gettii g ripe, was taken by his neighbour Mr Sievtnson's boys. He complained about it, and Mr Stevenson said he would chastise them. On the 30th he remembered tho last witness bringing a little child into the house, whom he said he had caught in the act of taking fruit. He lei the child go. He knew nothing of the assault, which he had not witnessed, bu f . saw tho witness Steer's head, which war. hurt.. Ho e«id it had been done by a stoi «■. This witness, like the Kst, was unable positively to identify either of tho children in the Court. Susan Stevenson, an elder suiter, deposed that on the 30th of January her youngest sister was standing on some bricks on t.hiir side of the garden fence and leaning over it, when

the lad Steer pulled her over and carried her into Mr Deßeer's house, and then brought her out again. Her mother did not throw ■any atones at the boy ■; merely said he was a mughty boy for talcing the child away into Deßeer's house The Bench eaid the assault was by no means proved, and they thought ; it was unnecessary to proceed further with tho case. Mr Thomas said by the evidence of three witnesses ho could prove it was entirely a malicious charge, as tho little girl had been lifted over the fence and carried into Deßeer's house, and was never near the plum tree. The little girl, Edith Stevenson, three year 3 of age, wan then charged with stealing the fruit, and as there was r.o farther ■evidence of a more reliable nature forth•coming than in the previous case, this was at once dismissed, tho Bench characterising it as a monstrous and unfounded charge. Fusions Driving—James McMaster was ■•summoned for furiously driving a and on the Ferry road, on the 22nd ult. Henry Luko stated that the defendant was driving a cart loaded with wood. He was in a flfcate of intoxication at the time, and was galloping the horse and lashing it with a whip. A witness stated ho was superintending the drainage works that were going ou ■ in the Ferry road when on the day in question the defendant drove along the ro?.d in the manner described by the last witness. There were about forty men working in the cutting at the time, and their lives were put iu jeopardy by his recklessness. Tho defendant Tfae fined 40s and costs. LYTTELTON. Monday, February 4. [Before Dr. Kouso and H. Allvrright, Esq.] Drunkenness. —A person was let off with ■a fine of 10s, it being first offence. Civil Cash—Geo. Atkinson v William Hiley, claim £2O. Mr H. N. Nalder for •plaintiff, Mr Joyce for defendant. PLdntiff testified that he was hired as canvasser and editor of the " Port Lyttelton Herald," at a ■jalary as canvasser of £3 per week, to be paid more when he entered upon his work as editor. Plaintiff therefore charged £3 for one week's •services, two weeks at £4, and two weeks and a half at £6, of which sura he had received ■during his engagement £8 2s. Messrs Eastwood and Morgan, compositors, stated that they were employed in the office, the former at £4 per week and the latter at £3. Mr Eistwood, who was subpoenaed by the plaintiff, testified in cross-examination that he considered plaintiff's services on the paper were not worth more than £3 per week. Defendant refused to pay him £6 per week because he was quite unqualified for the duties of editing the paper. He was willing to settle at the rato of £3 per week. Th« Court gave judgment for £l4 15s, a verdict equivalent to £3 per week and half a week at £3*loß.