MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1650, 4 June 1879, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, Junk 4. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Dhuntc and Disoedebly.— An elderly female first offender was fined 5s ; another, with a long string of previous convictions, 20s; and a third, also.not unknown to the Court, 40s. Vagbanct.— Mary Anne Cook was charged under the Vagrant Act with having no lawful risible means of support. The arresting constable stated that he found the woman taking shelter under a gorss hedge, and she had no home to go to. Sergeant Morice said she had not previously been before the Court, but since the Governor’s visit had been knocking about the town in company with men. The woman stated that her husband, who had been sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment for receiving stolen property, would be released in the course of a few hours, and that they both intended to clear out of the town and go to Akaroa, whore they belonged. His Worship said he had no wish to detain her in custody, and under the circumstances ordered her to be dismissed.

RANGIORA. Tuesday, June 3. [Before 0. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M., A, H. Cunningham, J. 0. Boys, and S. Hey wood, Eeqs.] Cattle Tbespass Ordinance.— W. Noble, fined ss.

Bobottqh By-iaws.—M, Melbourne and H. Blackett were charged with allowing an obstruction on a thoroughfare. Mr Clark objected to the by-laws, the receipt of a copy of which he contended had not been acknowledged from the Colonial Secretary’s office. Inspector Buckley said if such was the case he would ask for an adjournment to communicate with the borough authorities. The Resident Magistrate naked if this was the only objection. Mr Clark replied this was the only omission he knew at present; his client, however, desired that the case should be proceeded with, irrespective of the objection. The Resident Magistrate said the bylaws seemed to have been made in a proper way, and besides being duly published and sealed a memo, was appended to them that receipt of the same had been acknowledged by the Colonial Secretary on January 15th. In order to determine the validity of the bylaws under which the Justices would from time to timo be called on to hear cases the matter would be adjourned for a fortnight, when the legal adviser of the Council might attend to explain the manner ef their making. Thbbatbning a Baiiifb.—M. Lucy was charged by T. Lynakey, assistant bailiff, with using threatening and abusive language. Complainant said when ho called to serve a summons accused’s wife said Lucy was away, and would not return for a fortnight. Ho subsequently found him in the next house, and when discovered used the language detailed. Accused in defence said ho “ meant no offence at all, at all, but could not stand the bailiff’s interference in not minding his own business.” Accused became so excited in his demeanour at this stage that ho was detained in custody till the rising of the Court. The Resident Magistrate said that the Court would always visit with severity any impertinence on the part of its officers if at fault, but from the fact that the bailiff in question had never been complained against before, although for years in the service, and was known to the members of the Bench to be attentive and civil in the discharge of his duties, the Bench could not accept accused’s defence. They considered his excitable temper had gained the auterjr more tbm ouc<v and, cautioning

Mm that hia wife by telling a deliberate lie in laying he was away was liable for intercepting a bailiff in the discharge of his duties, dismissed the case. Oitix. Oabbb.— J. Anderson v Mrs Roach, judgment summons; order was made for payment of 6s per week, or, in default, a month’s imprisonment. J. George vJ. Batchelor, judgment summons; defendant ordered to pay 15s per week, or, in default, one month’s imprisonment. Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following cases : Matson, Buss and Co. v W. Barnard, £67 4s lid ; T. Thompson v 8. Wilson, £5 5s 5d ; Same tT. Frampton, £l7 2s 2d ; G. Kirk v J. Snelling, £2 Os 9d ; J. Anderson v C. Ff. Pemberton, £1 19s 9d; Same vW. Bell, £1 13s 6d j Same v M. Lucy, £1 8s Id ; Same v H. Bloomfield, jun., £4 Is 6d ; Or. Cone r 0. Pemberton, £lB 13a 6d ; J. B. Liownes v H. Bloomfield, jun., £4 Is 6i ; H. Blackett v 8. Wilson, £l9 9s Id ; 0. Davis v W, Harvey, 10s; J. George v A. Lilly, £2 5s sd; J. Sutherland y J. Batchelor, £l.