MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1586, 20 March 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, March 20,

[Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., G. L. Lee, Esq., J.P., and his Worship the Mayor.] Deunk and Disorderly.—Two inebriates were fined 5s each, and one twenty shillings, and 20s for obscene language. A Complicated Quaeekl. —Wm. Newton was informed against for assaulting Harriet Battcock; Harriet Battcock was summoned for using abusive and threatening language to Sarah Newton ; and there was a second complaint against Harriet Battcock, of a similar nature, brought by Maria Pegley. This was a neighbour’s row, which was stated to have arisen out of a transaction in fowls. Sarah Newton was first sworn, and gave evidence as to the nature of the language which she said had been made use of by the defendant Harriet Battcock. Maria Pegley, being sworn, said that Mrs Battcock sent a message to her that she wanted to see her. Not having the time to attend to her she disregarded the message, which led to the assault complained of. Harriet Battcock, being examined on her own behalf, said that Mrs Newton, having interfered with her, she appealed to the deff ndant Newton to restrain his wife, whereupon he knocked her down like a bullock, and, while she was down, Mrs Newton kicked her. Mrs Battcock called a witness in support of her statement, who swore that he saw Newton knock her down in the manner stated. He attempted to Interfere, and got maltreated too. A witness called by Newton swore that he saw Mrs Battcock abuse and strike him without any provocation. Another witness named Pegley gave evidence on behalf of Newton, whom he said was first interfered with by Mrs Battcock before he retaliated by striking her. The case against Newton was dismissed, and Mrs Battcock was fined 10s on each charge against her. Assault. —Daniel McGuinnese was summoned for aesauKing Samuel Haynes on March 11th. Mr Neck appeared for the complainant, and Mr R. D. Thomas for the defendant. The prosecutor stated that on the evening in question a man named Oostigan, the defendant, and himself were playing Yankee grab for champagne. A dispute took place, and the defendant ordered him out, but before he could leave the house the defendant struck him a blow in the face, which he did not return. The injury he received, compelled him to call in Dr. Patrick. Patrick Costigan deposed that he was asked by the complainant to go with him to the Britannia Hotel, of which the defendant is the lessee, to have some refreshments. The complainant kept worrying him to leave, which he was unwilling to do. He saw the complainant attempt to strike McGuinneas, and he prevented him, and said, “ No, you don’t strike a cripple.” He did not see the defendant strike Haynes at all. The witness said he had recently come down from the country, and the complainant, Haynes, and others had been “travelling” for him, and he (the witness) invited him to the Britannia to “ booze him up,” in hopes of prevailing on him to desist for the future. Dr. Patrick was c died as a witness, and asked for his fee before giving his evidence. The Bench said he must look to the person who had subpoenaed him. The witness then described the nature of the injuries for which he had attended the complainant. His nose was bleeding and damaged, but prior to those injuries he- did not consider it a “model organ.” Daniel O’Farrcll, another witness, gave his version of the assault, from which it appeared that Costigan introduced the subject of the champagne, and a bottle was brought in. Haynes wanted Costigan to leave, but the latter did not wish to go. When Costigan was about to drink, the complainant knocked the wine over him. McGuinness then told Haynes that he thought it time for him to leave when he did not know how to behave himself, and he tried to get him out, but not with any violence, whereupon the complainant “showed fight,” at which Costigan interfered, and the plaintiff was eventually got out. The plaintiff was, practically, forcing himself upon the whole company. A witness named Innes corroborated the evidence of the last witness. The defendant’s barman, Charles Dew, sworn, said ho remembered the night of the alleged assault, and said he saw the complainant in the back yard. His nose was bleeding, and he told the witness it frequently did so, and said that no one had struck him. After hearing the evidence of the defendant, who detailed the circumcumstauce which prompted him to attempt the removal of the complainant, and stated that the latter struck him first, the Bench at once dismissed the case. John Scott was summoned for assaulting Daniel Macpherson. The complainant stated that the defendant had apologised, and as not much damage had been done, he wished to withdraw the case. The Bench allowed the case to be withdrawn.

PBOTECTiON.— Many Anne Mitchell applied, under the Married Women’s Protection Act, for an order protecting her earnings against her husband, Isaac Mitchell, on the ground of his habitual drunkenness and gross cruelty. There was no appearance of the defendant, the Bench granted the order sought.

LYTTELTON. Thursday, March 20. (JBefore R. J. S. Harman, and H. Allwright, Eeqs., J.P.’s.] VAGRANCY. —James William Ross, an old offender, was charged with having no visible means of support. Sergeant-Major O’Qrady proved twelve previous convictions against the prisoner, who was sent to gaol for three months with hard labour. Drunkenness. —An individual charged with this offence pleaded that it was his first appearance in court, and was dismissed with a caution. Absent without Leave. —Henry Church, a seaman belonging to the barque Especulador, was charged by Captain Powell with being absent from his vessel without leave, was sent to gaol for seven days.