MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1672, 30 June 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Jhni 30. [Before G. L. Mellish, E»q., R.M.] Drunk and Disorderly.— Three d-unkards were diiposod of by a flue of 5i each. Larceny. —W’ l,: atn Arthur Beaumon*. John Crawford, and Robert McKay McLeod, were charged with stealing an ulster coat, value £3 3s, the properly of P. A. Edmiston The Inspector of Police stated that the offence had been committed at Ashburton, where the prosecutor resided, and requested that the accused might be remanded there Remanded, accordingly, to Ashburton, to he brought up on the 31st. Breach of Hackney Oabbiage Eslaw.—John Williamson was summonci for not having his horse under control. He war fined 10s end costs. Wandering Hosses asd Caxtib.—A number of persons were fined various sums for aUowing horses and cattle to wander at large. Bebach of Railway By-Laws. —Reuben Butcher, a fish hawker, was charged with trespassing on the railway promises by crossing over the rails. The Railway Constable Kelly proved the commission of the offence, and that the defendant had been previously cautioned. The defendant said he went on to the lino to lake delivery of the fish that was consigned to him, and was in ignorance that ho was committing a breach of the law. Th's was the first summons that had been brought since the notice board had been put up, and his Worship said that under the circumstances he would dismiss it, cautioning the defendant for the future. C. J. Foster was charged with jumping on to a train while it was in motion, and fined 10s. Dog Trespass.—John Doig was fined 20a for baling an unregistered dog ; n his possession.

Breach of Cnr By-Laws— Frederick Lavu’ence, Timothy Dunbar, Fredrick Beed, James Belcher, Q-coree Eastrick, Mamice Eavanagh, William Broad, James Paris, and r Thomas Morrison, fish hawkers, were summoned for causing an obstruction in the streets. By mutual consent a further adjournment of the cases wss made until July 11th. Frederick Colons wps summoned for driving across the footpath in Montreal street north. Mr Neck appeared for the defendant. Defendant wee sworn on his own behalf, and stated that the place in question was a private right of way, and had for a long time past been used as a crossing by the servants of the City Council as well as by the general public. Mr Gtarrick, who appeared for the City Council, said he did noli wish to press for more than a nominal penalty, to put the matter on a proper footing as far as the Council was concerned. His Worship dismissed the case, at the same time saying that if any more cases of a. similar nature wore brought forward, a pecuniary penalty would be indicted. Q-eorge Mann was summoned for removing a fence which had been put up by the City Council. Sergeant Hughes stated the facts, by which it appeared that the damage done, which was trifling, was the result of an accident, and was not intentionally done. The damage had since been repaired by the defendant, Mr Q-arrick pointed out that the real offence was the crossing a street which had been stopped for traffic by the Council. A barrier had been up, and a notice board also, and notwithstanding, the defendant had disregarded both, and so broken the by-law. The case was dismissed. Abusive "Language. Thomas Whelan was summoned for using abusive language calculated to cause a broach of the peace to Elizabeth Hislop. Mr Neck appeared for the defendant. The prosecutrix said that on June 4th, the defendant came to her back door and taxed her with stealing his “spuds,” and called her a common prostitute, The defendant, on oath, said that ho had frequently been annoyed by the complainant On the day in question, lie found a spade by the side of his potato pit. He asked her if it was hers, and she said “ yes.” He then said, “ Oh, you krow all about :t then.” He then loft, and after having his dinner, was going away on his horse, when the woman, who 'was standing at her door, took “a sight ” at fcim, by placing her outspread fingers to her nose. Ho said, “ Well, you are an ugly woman ” He never made use of the language imputed to bin’ Defendant’s wife corroborated his evidence. Mrs Martin, a neighbor, said the defendant was a quiet, inoffensive man. She remembered seeing the complainant take “ a sight ” at the defendant, who only said, “ What an ugly woman you are.” His Worship was of opinion that the justice of the case would be met by dismissing the information. Case dismissed. William Atkinson was charged with making use of abusive language to William Dixon on June 16th. The complainant said a day or two before the defendant had made use of filthy language to his wife, and when he spoke to him about it ho threatened violence to him. The defendant was a nuisance in the neighborhood from his larrikinism, and he had summoned him for the purpose of putting a stop to it. The evidence of the complainant wa« cor»

roborated by Mrs Cross a neighbor. The defendant was reprimanded, and fined iUa and costs, with tho expense of one wit- . PROTECTION ORDER.— -Jane Price applied fcor an order to protect her earnings against her husband, William Price, on the ground of his continual drunkenness and misconduct. After hearing the statement of the complainant, to tho effect that her husband’s intemperance led to the neglect of his family, his Worship characterised him as a “ lazy drunkard,” whom six months’ hard labor would do good to. It was a hopeless case, as the defendant was such a weak-minded fellow that he could not refuse drink when it came in his way. His Worship said that so long ns the complainant remained with her husband be could grant no order. IE she left him he would grant ono, and see what a little hard labor would do for the defendant. They then left the Court together, the complainant stating that having no other home to go to she had no alternative but to remain with the defendant.