MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1561, 19 February 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CiraiSTCHURCH. Wednkbday, Fkijrtjaey 19. [Before G-. L. Mellish, Esq.R.MV] Dbunk and Disobdebly.—A first offender was Sncd ss. Pocket-Picking.—Samuel Djbbinson was charged with stealing £1 2s 6J, the property of John Q. Syde. William Jarvis being sworn stated that he was a farm laborer living at Aldington. He was in the City Hotel on Tuesday afternoon, and saw th» prosecutor lying d ; >wn on a scat in the public bar. The prisoner came up and fell over the prosecutor, and after fumbling his coat pockets took something out. Directly afterwards he saw the prisoner apparently shaking hands with another man. Another witness named George Bennett, apparently in a state of intoxication, was ordered outside fur a lew minutes for the police to examine into his sobriety. A gentleman in court stated that he had known the lust witness for year?, and ho was alwaya drunk, and was not likely to be any bettor if he remained at large. Under these circumstances theßench adjourned the case for-twenty-four hours, and ordered the detention of Mr Bennett, that he might have an opportunity of recovery. At the same time a caution "was administered to the first witness* who had given his evidence in a suggestively sententious manner, that he had likewise better abstain from any more stimulants.

LYTTELTON. Wednesday, Febeuaey 19. [Before Dr. Donald, H. Allwright, Esq., and Dr. Rouse.] Breach of Bobough By-laws.—For permitting cattle to roam at large —J. Illingworth was fined 10s and costs ; J. Higgs, 10* and costs ; H. Salt, 5s ; W. Hedgeman, 10s ; and W. Mitchell, 20s; with 5s costs in each case. Juvenile Assault. —Neil Galbraith wa» fined 6s and costs for assaulting a schoolmate, William Newton. Deseetion. —The boatswain of the ship Waikato was sentenced to fourteen days, with hard labour, for deserting. Cruelty to Cattle. —W. H. Keith waa charged with cruelly torturing six head of cattle by confining them in an overcrowded railway truck, thereby causing their death, on January 17th. The cattle were forwarded from Addinton to Lyttelton for shipment. Mr Duncan appeared to watch the case in the interest of the Railway department. The Railway clerks examined testified that the cattle were shipped at the risk of the shipper. Shippers engaged trucks from the department at per truck, and usually load them themselves, always at their own responsibility. The departments take no risk. There were 109 head of cattle put by defendant in thirteen trucks on January 17th. In the truck No. 663, in which the dead cattle were found, there were twelve head. The truck was much overcrowded. The yard foreman at Lyttelton testified, remembered receiving the cattle for shipment by the Wallibi. Some of the trucks were cattle ones. Some were not. Five deal cattle were in truck No. 1468, not in number 663. There|were twelve head in the truck. The cattle were killed by being overcrowded. The doors of the truck were open about three inches. Mr Keith took possession of the cattle. Cross-examined by Mr Keith— I consider twelve head too many to be put in a truck that size. The steam was issuing from the doors of the truck when the train arrived. The doors were open. Wm. Cook, a butcher, stated that he was sent for by Mr Keith on the 17th ult., and asked to remove the dead cattle. Mr Keith did not ask me to bury them. He would not pay for them being buried. The dead ones were from twelve to sixteen months' old. The case was dismissed, the Bench remarking that however improper it undoubtedly was to put cattle in a box truck the present case did not come within the meaning of the Act. Civil.—Cuff and Graham v Drover, £6 lis 6d ; judgment by default. Same v J. W. Disher, £4 3s 6d ; same v J. Main, £1 12s ; judgment in each case by default. Curtis and Co. v Northy, lis 8d ; judgment by default. Same v C. Rountly ; judgment by confession for £1 9s, costs ss. A Diamond Ring Dispute.—S. De Costa v W. Smith, claim £l4, value of gold ring. Mr Joyce for plaintiff, Mr H. N. Nalder for defendant. Mrs De Costa testified that the ring was a diamond ring. That defendant purchased it in August, and said he would pay for it on the 4th of the following month. He did not pay, and two months afterwardssaid that he had lent his money, and could not pay then. Some time afterwards he said ho had given the ring to someone to take to Christchurch to have it re-set at Mr Petersen's, and it was returned to him, the jeweller having Btated that the stone was not a diamond. Ho then refused to pay the sum he had agreed to. In cross-examination, plaintiff said it was in August last defendant bought the article. The ring was previously in Mr Fletcher's possession for sale. It was only four or five weeks ago that defendant refused to pay, when he heard that he would be summoned. He did not say two or three days afterwards that he had been told the stone was not a diamond. Sold it as a diamond ring. Plaintiff reiterated her previous statement that defendant did not tell her that he had been told the stone in the ring he had ■ was not a diamond. The ring cost £ll 10s at Home. Mr Scott, a hotelkeeper, at Chriftchurch, testified that he had had possession of a ring for about a month, belonging to plaintiff. He did not doubt it was a diamond ring. Witness, on being shown a ring produced by plaintiff, stated that the ring he had was similar in appearance. William Smith, the defendant, said he bought a diamond ring from plaintiff for £l4. Had seen the ring four or five weeks before. Since he bought it it had been out of his possession sixteen days, having sent it to Mr Peterson to have it re-set. He didn't re-set it. Mr Gunderson, at Mr Peterson's, said it was not worth setting—it was a piece of glass. Refused to pay for it in January. Was living at plaintiff's hotel for some time previous. Plaintiff offered it to me some time in August. After I bought it about a week, I told plaintiff parties had told me the stone in the ring was not a diamond. The stone fell out of the ring, and I sent it and the ring to Mr Petersen's. I went to Mr Petersen's on the 17th October to see him about it, and told plaintiff that night that Mr Petersen declared the stone in the ring was a piece of glass. It was at the Masonic meeting the stone dropped out of the ring. Picked it up afterwards on the floor. Four persons were present when I found it. There were eighteen or twenty gentlemen present at the meeting. It was Mrs Graham that took it to Mr Petersen's. Sixteen days after I saw it there. Plaintiff, recalled, said the stone now Bhown in Court by defendant wss nothing like the one in the ring when she sold it. [Left sitting.]