MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1549, 5 February 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH Wednesday, February 3. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunk and Disorderly. —David Thow was charged with behaving himself in a public place in a manner calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Professor Scott being sworn said on the previous evening he was giving a lecture in Cathedral square, when thfc prisoner commenced chaffing him, and on remonstrating with him he used some very bad language. The crowd was very much incensed at his conduct, and hunted him round the square, pelting him with stones and eggs, ami had it not been for the police he would probably have been seriously injured. Detective Benjamin corroborated the evidence of Professor Scott. Sergeant Beck said about half-past nine o’clock the previous evening he heard a gt eat disturbance in Cathedral square and lie saw a crowd of 1000 or 1500 people greatly excited and pelting the prisoner with, stones and eggs. He removed the prisoner to the police depot as the best means of rescuing him, as he probably would have been hurt. The prisoner was fined 20s; William Thompson was fined, 20s; Thornes Hind Toppin, 10s; Isaac Butterfield, 5s and a first offender, 6s for drunkenness. Breach of the Peace. —John Wilson and Alexander Stewart admitted fighting in. the street, and were fined 10s each for being drunk; Wilson was further fined 50s for resist ins' and assaulting the constable who arrest'd him, Ellen Boyle, an old offender, was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Illegally on Premises. —Henry Danby John Parker, and Bridget Perrick were charged with bung illegally on the premises of Mr Frederick Cross in Madras street. They were found sleeping in an empty room. The agen t of the property said they had no authority for being on the premises which was liable lo be burnt from the bad characters who were in the habit of resorting there as a refuge. Detective Benjamin gave the prisoner Danby a very bad character, and Parker received the same from Detective Walker being characterised as a notorious loafer, thief, and pickpocket. Parker who had a long list of convictions against him, but bad not very recently been before the Court was, with his companions, sentenced to forty-eight hours’ imprisonment with hard labor, and bis Worship said they had better take advantage of the leniency shown them. False Representation. —William John Leverton was charged with endeavoring to impose udon a private individual, with the object, of obtaining a personal advantage. Mr Neck appeared for the defendant. Richard Henry Clark said he was a butcher, carrying on business in Waltham. On the evening of the Bth of November ho was walking in the Domain with a female companion, when he was accosted by (he accused and another man. The accused said he was a night watchman employed by the Government, and ho accused him (witness) of improper conduct. The accused told witness that he had rendered himself liable to a fine of £5, but he (accused) knew what £5 was, from which witness inferred bo meant that he was willing to take ti:e £5 as a bribe for his silence. He took witness’s name and address, and the latter, rather than risk any exposure, gave him 10s and made an appointment—to be at the Golden Age—the following morning, when he was to hand him over the balance of the £5. Accused and witness were at the Golden Age the next morning, but the witness declined to give any more money unless in the presence of the man who was with him the previous evening. The next time the witness saw him was on the Anniversary Day, when, on accosting him, he offered to have it out with him for the balance. Witness had scon accused once since, and the latter said he could not return the money he had extorted from him, but. lie had some game fowls which he offered to give him. Wit nets declined this. Ho had not seen the accused's companion since. Witness was of opinion that the object of the accused was more to obtain money, while that of the man who was with him was to decoy away the person who was in the Domain with him, and he (witness) believed that lie had succeeded. John Clarke, the brother of the last w itness, recognised the accused as the man who had accosted him on the Anniversary night. He said, “ you had better band over that TOs ; ” and the accused replied, “If you want anything you had better come into the paddock and take it out.” Mr Armstrong, curator of the Domain and Park, stalled that the accused was not employed in any way by the Domain Board, and be had no authority to represent himself as a night watchman. Detective Walker proved arresting the accused, and on asking Idm why he did not give Clarke his companion's name, he replied that he did not know who he was. On the evening in question be saw him “ spotting” Clarke and his companion in the Domain and he joined him. Mr Neck having addressed the Bench, his Worship said the facts of the case appeared to have been very clearly proved. The evidence of the prosecution had been verv dearly given, and it, had been corroborated by his brother. There was no doubt be had induced the witness to give the 10a under a fraudulent representation. It was simply an extortion of hush-money, and the money had obviously be&n given for the purpose ot saving a respectable young woman’s name from public exposure. It was altogether a disgraceful case, and the accused bad rendered himself liable to twelve months’ imprisonment with hard labour. As it was he would bo sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment with hard labour.