MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1690, 21 July 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTOHURCH. Monday, July 21. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, R.M.] Dbunk and Disoedebly.—Two drDnkards were fined 10a each, and one 20s. OD3CENB 1-akguage.—Patrick Ryan wa* fined 30s for making use of obscene language in tbe public street while in a state of drunkenness. Labcehy.—George Dell was charged with stealing a teat, value £1 15s, the property ofr John Maguire. On the application of the pol ; ce the accu-ed was remanded to J-fa-burton. Bbbach of City By-latvs.—Charles J. W'lson was fined 5s and costs 2s for allowing a horse to wander at le~ge. Geo. McDonala was fined 10a and 2s costs for not hav'"ig his horse rider proper control. Patrick Howard, a cabman, we.i fined lCs and costs 7s for demanding more than his legal fare. James Borland was fined 5s and 7s costs for allowing a horse to wander at large on Cambridge terrace. James Newell was fined a sinrlor sum for allowing two heifers to be at large. Disputed Boundary.—Mary Gunn was - charged with breaVng dow j a fence, the property of Nicholas Oats. This wn an adjourned case, the particulars of which, have already been published. Mr Izard appeared for the defendant, and Mr Neck for *he accused. Mr Mclntyre, surveyor, now gave e-. !deuce on behalf of the compbrnant. He . stated the resu't of a survey he had made of the ground which was bisected by the fence in question, which showed that the fence wn partly on land belonging to the complairinfc and partly to the defendant. His Worship held that from one survey the defendant had right on her side, and by another she had not. M~ Izard admitted the breaking dov. n of the fence, but pleaded justification. Mr PavLj ' was and stated he had surveyed theland and found that the pegs were not in their proper place : he put them in the 5 - places. His Worship said he considered a ' very rnneighborly act had been committed by the defendant, but as by the evidence it appeared she had to a certain exr :nt right on her side, he could not inflict a fine. He would enter the case as one in which the Cor-t had no jurisdiction. Obtaining Money ttndee Fame Pestbnces. —James Harper was charged with obtaining the sum of £47 10s by false pretences from Benjamin Searle. The prosecution was conducted by the police. Mr Thomas appeal "ng to watch the case car behalf of Benjamin Searle. The prosecu f ir deposed that he wr-. licensee of the Cass Hotel, on the West Coast road, and on tbe 18th inst., the prisoner came and purcr-3 -V some goods. He said he was going to Grasmere, two miles dis f ~nt. He did not take away the things he had bought. He said the paymaster (Mr Locke), had not been up, and could he (witness 1 ), advance him any more money. Mr Locke wn paymaster of that district and Clerk of Public Works. Witness asked him what cash he required, and he said about £lO 12s. He asked him to advance him £47 10a on account of Mr Keating, his partner. He said if he advanced the money he would give witness an order on Mr Locke. Knew that Keating and Harper were in partnership. Han previously given the prisoner money on two orders on Mr Locke, amounting to £22 10s. Gave him two five poun r , two sovereigns, and some s :, ver. There were three different cheques amounting to £35, making with the other sums the total of £47 10s. The cheques produced were the ones given by witness to tbe accused. The chequeswere payable on witness's account to Messr - Harper and Keating or bearer. The accuse i said he would come back again for the goods which he had purchased. Subsequently, pa tbe accused did not come back, witnessfollowed him the next morning by the coac v . Ho found him at 0 aigicbarn in a different direction, and gave him in charge to the police. Would not have given the accused the money but for his statement that he had received an order from Mr Keating to receive it. Robert Keatley deposed that he was licensee of the accommodation house at the Bealcy. Had known accused eight or nine month*, and had been in partnership with him over three months in a contract to shift the Bealey police premises. The accused left witness* place on Thursday morning lsst. Previous to leaving accused said nothing about money. The amount of the contract was £305. Did not think accused had much to come out of that contract. Had not given accused authority to go to Mr Searle for money on that occasion. Harper had.nothing to do with the pajrce.it of the wages. deposed that he was a carpenter. Had been in the employ of Keating and Harper. They had been shifting the police barracks at the Bealey. Was engaged by Keating who paid him his wages. Had not Known the accused pay any of the accounts of the firm. The other employees of the firm were paid by Keating. Harper being present Harper acted as timekeeper. Mounted Constable Haddrell, stationed at the Bealey, stated that he arrested the prisoner at Craigieburn. Ho searched him at Castle hill, and found the three cheques produced, in Court, two £5 notes, one sovereign, and 5s 6d in silver. Tire coach was en route for Christchnrch. Ho said if witness had not arrested him, Castle hill was as far as he intended going. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Thomas addressed the Cou. j in the interests of Mr 3earle, and Mr Neck for the accused. His Worship had very little doubt as to the merits of the case, which he should dismiss, but. aa to the money found on the accused, he did not consider, regarding how it has been obtained, that it should be returned to the accused. The money would be handed to the piosecutor and the case dismissed. Assault. —Will"am Dixon was charged with aßEaulting J. H. Hopkins on the 6th July, and also of having used threatening language towards him. The offence was admitted, and on the accused promising not to molest the complainant £gain, he did not press tli2 charge. The defendant was discharged on paying expenses. Assault. —Richard Mills was charged with assaulting W. W. Anderson on the 11th ins«\ The complainant having given the particulnrs of the assault, which was a trifling one between fellow-workmen, the case was dismissed with a fine of Ijs, and costs 7 the complainant nut wishing to press the charge. Assault.—R. M. Buchanan was Bummonci for assaulting Wi'liam G-oswell, an assistant bailiff, while in the execution of his duly. The evidence of the eoinplain-.ivt was to the effect that ho wua violently turned out of the premises of the defendant, where he had bsen sent wi(.h a warrant and put in possession. After assaulting hica he threw the warrant after him. R. McKnight, bailiff of tbe Court, stated that ho had sent.the complainant to the defendant's house witli a distress warrant on the 11th instant, and he came back the same day lame, and said ho had been violently put out of tho house by the defendant. Later ou the same day he sent (.he complainant back with tho warrant. The defendant was BWern in his own defence 1 and denied having used any violence. He considered the warrant was an informal one, and, therefore, ho led the defendant out, but he ncithor throw him dawn or used any violence towards him. Ho (defendant) was not under the influence of liquor, aud he did

not make use of any bad language, as stated by the complainant. There was a second charge of a similar nature, alleged to bavo teen committed at a later hour on the same day. Eobert Turnbull deposed that, acting from the instructions of Mr McKnight, he wont with the complaicant in the provious case, to the h ° of the defendant with the warrant amended. It was about four o'clock in the afternoon. The defendant became very violent, and threatened to turn both him and Goswell out of the houße. The defendant accompanied him and G-oswell about eighty yards towards town for the purpose of getting the money, hut he ohanged his mind, and turned back again. The money was paid next day. William Goiwcll corroborated the evidence of the last witness. He further stated that he was left in charge of defendant's house by Turnbull, and defendant dragged him out of the house and threatened to shoot him. He loaded a gun for that purpose. It was snowing at the time, and he (» itneaa) remained o itside until 6 p.m. The defendant again denied having committed any assault, and that be loaded the gun merely with powder to shoot fowls. He did not use any bad or threatening language. His Worship said, as for the warrant the defendant had no right to interfere with the bailiff in the execution of his duty. He believed that the assault had been committed as stated by the bailiffs rather than the statement of the defendant, who had neglected to call any evidence on his behalf, although there were persons in the house at the time. The defendant would have to pay a fine of 40s in the first instance, and £5 on the second, with £1 expenses.