MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1557, 14 February 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, February 14. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunk and Disorderly. —Two first offenders were fined 5s each. Peter Comiskey was charged with being drunk, and making use of obscene language. Constable Brooks proved the offence, and a lino of 20s was imposed. Breach of the Peace.— Henry Hynes was charged with behaving himself so as to provoke a breach of the peace. Mr Neck appeared for the defendant. Francis Fahey, a watchman at the Bank of New Zealand, stated that just before nine o’clock the previous night he saw the defendant go into the bank and he said he wanted to see a doctor. He told him it was a hank and not a doctor’s. Defendant insisted on going in, created a dis turbance, and assaulted the witness thereby creating a crowd. Witness put him out, and he was subsequently given into custody of the police. In answer to Mr Neck, the witness stated the defendant threatened to strike him with stones he had in his hand, whereupon he knocked him down with a stick. Mr Inspector Hickson said he taxed the defendant with throwing a stone opposite Percy’s boot shop. He heard the rattle of the stone, and saw it roll away from the defendant’s feet. He took him to the night watchman who identified him as the man who forced himself into the bank. The Bench considered the case proved, and fined the defendant 10s.

Pbotection of Eaeninos. —Jane Mahoney applied for an order protecting her property and earnings against her husband, Francis Mahoney, on the ground of his habitual drunkenness and gross cruelly. Ho was further summoned for violently assaulting his wife, Jane Mahoney, and threatening to take her life on February 6th, Mr Keck appeared for Francis Mahoney, and asked that both cases should be adjourned for a week. They were adjourned accordingly. Labceny. —Frederick Bridgman and Samuel Jacobs were charged with stealing four vases, value 6s, the property of Henry Marks. Mr Neck appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr Hawkins of Hokitika, for the prisoner. The prosecutor being sworn, deposed, that he kept a fancy shop at the corner of Tuam and Manchester streets. There were three yards at the back of his shop, all in his own occupation. About 10 o’clock on the 9th inst, he noticed four vases behind one of the gates, lying on the ground. He covered them over with paper, and then went to the police. On returning, he saw the defendant Jacobs in the yard attached to the fruit shop. It was not the yard he had seen the vases in. Ho saw the defendant Bridgman running towards the gate of Jacobs’ house. The latter motioned to him to go on. Bridgman was carrying a keg, and witness ran after him, calling him to stop. He caught him at the gate, and took the keg from him. Jacobs then came up, and witness said, “I have been robbed to a considerable extent. I now know who are the thieves. Bridgman did not make any answer. Witness opened the keg, and found the four vases ho had seen inside of it, the same vases now produced in court, Daniel Phillipps Meyers deposed that ho was foreman and manager to the prosecutor. On Saturday the Bth inst. the prisoners

wore both in the shop. Both prisoners had r perfect right to go in and out of the shop as they liked, as they had business transactions with the prosecutor which necessitated them to do 00. The vases produced were similar to some in Mr Marks’ stock. The prosecutor had noticed the stock of vases was diminishing in quantity, and asked the witness if ho could account for it, as they could not find, on enquiry of the shop girls, that many of them were sold. Detective Benjamin deposed that on Sunday last, about 10 o’clock, the prosecutor came to the Police .Depot and laid an information against the prisoners. He brought a keg with him containing the four vases produced. He subsequently arrested both tho prisoners. This was the ease for the prosecution, Mr Hawkins having addressed tho Bench on behalf of the prisoners, His Worship said there was no doubt about the guilt of Bridgman, and tho conduct of tho other prisoner Jacobs was also very suspicious, keeping, as ho did, a shop for the sale of the same description of goods that the prisoners were both charged with, stealing. There was just a shadow of doubt in the case of Jacobs, which he would have tho benefit of, but he should strongly advise tho prosecutor no longer to give him the right of entering on his promises. It appeared to have been part of a systematic series of peculations, and there was no doubt whatever of the gutUof Bridgman. Jacobs was disc 1 a god, ai d Bridgman, being his first appearance before the Court, would be sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment with hard labor. Causing an Obsteuotion. —James Anderson was summoned for causing an unnecessary obstruction on the South town belt, by allowing a horse and vehicle to remain upon the same, contrary to the City by-law. Tho defendant, a milkman, said he only left his trap for a few minutes while he transacted his business, and he could not afford a footman to look after his vehicle. He thought ho had as much right to a portion of tho road as the cabmen or any other person, and he did not think ho had caused auy obstruction. The Bench held there had been an obstruction and fined the defendant 10s. Teespassino on the Railway.—Nicholas Columbus was charged with allowing his horse and vehicle to wander on the railway lino. The railway constable said tho alleged trespass was committed on February 4th, and consisted in the defendant leaving his horse and vehicle within fifteen yards of the railway crossing. Tho vehicle was within the fences. On examination by the Bench no offence was found to have been committed, as tho defendant appeared to have been on the authorised roadway, although within the railway fences ; and tho information was accordingly dismissed. Delving Acsoss the Railway Line. — John Williams was summoned for driving across the railway line when a train was approaching. Tho defendant admitted the offence, but not having received any instructions was unaware that he was breaking the law. He did not see tho train approaching. The evidence of a shunter employed on the railway was taken, to the effect that he had raised his arm when the train was approaching as a caution to the driver. A fine of 10s was imposed. Duncan Munro appeared to answer a similar charge, and was likewise fined the same amount.

Unlightbd Lamps.—Charles Ellis was summoned under the Hackney Carriage Bylaw for not having his lamps alight after sunset. The driver admitted tho offence, but said he had just taken a license, and did not know he was compelled to have his lamps lighted, neither was he plying for hire. He was fined 10s.

Wandering Cattle. Samuel Jones, Q-eorgo Trask, Richard Sunderland, Albert Williams, Herman Fuhrwhan, Thomas Hazard, and Edwin Berry were each fined 5s for allowing horses and cattle to trespass on the public thoroughfares. Causing a Nuisance.— W. J. White was summoned for causing a nuisance on his premises in Tuam street by allowing a closet pan to overflow. There was a second information for depositing night soil in his back yard, contrary to the Local Board of Health Act. Dr Foster represented the Board of Health. The defendant said the whole proceedings were out of order, and laid the whole blame of the nuisance on the contractor, who failed to do the necessary work,and yet he had to pay. He had been asked to sign a book compelling him to pay a double rate, which he had refused to do, and he had been told he could bo compelled to pay, whether ho signed it or not. Ho was willing to pay the proper rate, but not a double one. As for depositing the soil on the premises, ho had been forced to dig a hole to deposit it in, as the contractor had never come near him for seven months, and yet a regular demand for payment was made. Dr Foster said he had been instructed the defendant had never paid any money at all. The Inspector of nuisances. Mr Hobbs gave evidence as to the procedure for carrying out the regulatio n of the town, and also as to the existence c f a dangerous nuisance. His Worship said the defendant was by no means compelled to have the work of removing the nuisance done by the city authorities, but at the same time he must comply with the sanitary requirements by doing it in his own way if he thought it worth while to do it himself; but he would find it an expensive affair, especially if typhoid fever broke out, and he wore to lose one or two children, that is, if he had any family. The case was adjourned on the promise of the defendant to remove the nuisance within forty-eight hours, in which case the information would be withdrawn, on the defendant paying ss, the cost of the present summons. Violent Assault. Henry Butler and Annadino Oliver were summoned for assaulting Richard Vizer on the 25th of January, There was a cross summons charging Vizer with assaulting Butler and Oliver. Mr R. D. Thomas appeared in each case for Vizer, and Mr Joyce for the defendants Butler and Oliver. Richard Vizer stated the particulars of the case, which have already been reported, and the nature of the assault, from which it appeared he was first struck by Oliver with a supple jack. Butler then struck him on the back of the head, causing him to fall, and breaking his collar bone. When he was down Oliver knelt on him, and would not rise until he promised to pay for the stick which had been broken in the struggle. On the approach of a third party both defendants cleared off. The witness stated he had been idle from the effects of the defendant s’ violence for three weeks, and was likely to be so for another week. He had never given any provocation to the defendants, nor had his female companion, who was a respectable girl, and they had offered to leave the seat they were occupying if the defendants wished it. By Mr Thomas: Overtures had afterwards been made by Oliver and his friends to compromise the matter and keep it out of the Court, but nothing came of it, and hence the present proceedings had been taken. Mary Cunningham, the young woman who was in the company of Vizer on the evening in question gave her version of the circumstances, which tallied with that of the previous witness. They (defendants) intruded themselves upon the witness and her companion in an offensive manner, and annoyed them with their conversation. They would neither take the seat offered to them by witness and her friend, or remove away, and the observations they made were of an offensive nature. Witness then corroborated the first witness’s evidence ns to the brutal nature of the assault. In answer to Mr Joyce, the witness said she had had a conversation with Oliver’s mother, and had told her the particulars of what had occurred in the park. Mrs Oliver made some overtures towards compromising the matter, but nothing had come of it Mr Joyce rigidly cross-examined the witness, but failed to shake her evidence in any material point. Tliis was the complainant Vizer’s case Mr Joyce addressed the Bench, and put Alladine Oliver into the witness box, who, being sworn, said on the night of the affray ho was in the park with his companion Butler. He fancied he recognised the voices of two persons ho knew, and he crept up to where they were seated, but found they were Vizer and his companion Mary Cunninham. He accosted them, but when ho found ho was mistaken he apologised. Vizer and his companion asked them if they wanted any of them, and both replied in the negative; they next offered them the seat which they refused. Subsequent words ensued, and

eventually Yizer struck him first; in doings© lie fell and witness fell on him. Yizer said nothing about his arm being broken, merely said his shoulder was hurt. Witness replied “ Never mind your shoulder, pay mo for the stick you have broken.” He then saw his companion strike Yizer. He stood aloof while he (witness) was struggling with Yizer. While Yizer was down ho (witness) threatened to strike him if ho did not pay for the stick, Henry Butler being sworn, in reply to Mr Joyce, said this was not his first appearance in the Court. Ho had been previously been before it for throwing a stone into a church door. Ho told a similar story to that of the last witness,and stated the prosecution arose on the part of Yizer, who requested Oliver “to put up his dukes,” which he interpreted to mean a challenge to fight. Oliver refused the invitation. The remainder of his evidence went to show that he and Oliver had been guiltless of any offence, that they had only been looking for a couple of f fiends they had missed, that they had mistaken Yizer and his companion for them, that they then apologised, and all tne subsequent proceedings had ari-en out of ti e insulting language and violent conduct of Yizer. He positively swore he never struck Yizer. Richard Oliver, a carpenter, brother to Annadine Oliver, swore that in a conversation with tho complainant Yizer, the latter stated he had first struck Oliver. 7izor wanted to compromise the matter, and ho (witness) rather than have his family’s name dragged into publicity would have been willing to have settled it privately if a small sum would have done it. When Yizer said it would take £2O to hush tho matter up, the witness decided to let it go on. Mary Cunningham, in a conversation with witness, also said distinctly that Richard Yizer had taken his coat off and struck tho first blow. Elizabeth Oliver, the mother of tho defendant* stated she had conversed with Mary Cunningham last Sunday, and she admitted that Yizer had t aken his coat off and struck Oliver before the latter assaulted him. On the evening of the same day Yizer repeated the same statement. Constable Cullen narrated a conversation he had heard between Annadine Oliver and Richard Yizer, in which the latter admitted they had both been in fault. Edgar Oliver corroborated this evidence. Richard Yizer recalled, positively swore he had only admitted to taking his coat off, but not to striking the first blow. He explained, the admission made by him in tho presence of Constable Cullen to have amounted, only that “ he had been in the wrong to the extent of taking off his coat.” Mary Cunningham recalled, also swore that the statement which had been made as to her saying Yizer had struck the first blow was utterly false. This was the whole of the evidence. His Worship said the case was simple enough. It was a one of pure cowardly larrikinism. He had no doubt that Butler had deliberately committed the most glaring perjury in swearing as he had ; the evidence of the other defendant was improbable enough, but Butler’s was worse. His Worship did not for a moment doubt that Butler had struck Yizer from behind. The witness Mary Cunningham had given her evidence in the most straightforward manner, and it had hung together in every particular. The case of Oliver against Yizer was dismissed, and, as to tho question of what compensation was due to Yizer, the Bench fined the defendants £5 each, half the amount of the fine to be awarded to the prosecutor, and the costs to be divided between them. In imposing this fine, his Worship said he would, but for the youth of tho defendants, have doubled it. The solicitor’s fee, £2 2s, was also allowed. In default of payment, the alternative would be one month’® imprisonment, with hard labor.