MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1720, 25 August 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, August 25. G. H. Hall, Esq., and W. H. Simms, Esq., J.P.’s.] Dbunk and Disokdebly. Six first offenders were cautioned and discharged, one inebriate was fined 10s, one 20s, and another, who had been liberated on bail, appeared in Court in a state of intoxication, and was sent to gaol for twenty-four hours for contempt of Court. Uneegibtebbd Dogs. —Josish McOlintook was summoned for having an unregistered dog in his possession, and fined 20s. Beeach op Public House Obdinanoe.— Joseph Marsden, licensee of the Heathcote Valley Hotel, was summoned for selling liquor on Sunday, August 10th. Mr R. D. Tnomas appeared for the defendant, and stated that at the time of the alleged sale Mr Marsden had transferred his license to another party, but the transfer was not completed until the following day; he was, therefore, not legally liable for tho breach of the law, although the sale of the drink had taken place under his license. Thomas Askew deposed that on the day in question he was in the house, and had some beer given to him by two travellers who had been served. Mr Thomas submitted that there was no intention to break the law, and when the beer was served tho party who gave it was unaware that the witness Askew lived in the Heathcote Valley and was not a bona fide traveller. The Bench dismissed the case. Railway By-laws. —H. Hempton was charged with entering a railway carriage while in motion. The offence was admitted, and the defendant fined 10s and costs 2s. Causing an Obstbuction. —A Gregg was charged with causing an obstruction in a public thoroughfare by allowing a horse and express cart to remain on the South town belt unattended. He was fined 10s. Wandeeinq Hobses and Cattle. —Wm. Brown was fined 10.*, and James Hogg, Thos. Dalton, George Hyde, Charles Higgs, R. Sunderland, James Borland, J. W. Wham, and Frederick Allen were each fined ss, and 7s costs, for allowing horses and cattle to wander at large.

Neglected Obimikal Childbed.—Annie Collins, sen., and Annie Collins, jun., were summoned, under the Neglected Criminal Children’s Act, for harbouring Emily Bowen and Mary Eorrick, two children, inmates of the Burnham Industrial School. Mr Neck appeared for the defendants. Charles Eoseveare, master of the Burnham Industrial School, produced the warrants for the detention of the children, Emily Bowen and Mary Ferrick. On the evening of the 11th instant the two children were absent from the school. When -witness missed them he went to the Bolleston Hotel, kept by the eldest defendant, and told the younger one ho wanted the children given up to him. Mrs Collins and her daughter admitted the children were there, and told them to get themselves ready to go with witness. After remaining some time in conversation with Mrs Collins, Miss Collins came in and told him the children had got away. About twelve o’clock at night, feeling sure the children would return, the witness hid by the fence, and heard the children returning to the hotel. He at onco took charge of them. The following day he saw Miss Collins at the Christchurch railway station, and told her she had acted very foolishly in harbouring the children, and had rendered herself liable to be lined £lO. She said that she did not care. In cross-examination by Mr Neck, the witness admitted that the defendants acknowledged at once that the children were in the hotel, and that the night being wet they (the defendants) suggested that the children should remain there until the morning, and Miss Collins went over to the station master, and asked him to telegraph to Burnham for the children to bo sent for. Emily Bowon, fourteen years of ago, said she had been an inmate if the Burham School fourteen months. On the evening of the 11th instant she and a girl named Mary Ferrick ran away from the school at about six o’clock. They went to the Eollcston Hotel, kept by Mrs Collins. In reply to a question from Mrs Collins, wilne s told her who they were, and then they had something to eat given them and were put to bed. Shortly afterwards Miss Collins told her she was wanted by the master of the school and bade her get up, dress herself, and go away quietly with her master. Miss Collins asked if she (witness) would tell if she lot her out of tho window, and s'..o said she would not. Miss Collins then opened the window, and witness and Mary Ferrick got out and went into the paddock To Mr Neck—l told Mrs Collins I came from Timaru and from the Selwyn, both of which were untrue. The younger defendant said witness had come from the Industrial School. Witness told Mrs Collins that she was cold and starving, and she gave her some wine. Mary Ferrick corroborated tho evidence of the last witness, but stated that the defendants did not want to lot them come back, but she and her companion begged to be permitted. Mrs Collinns, being sworn, said that on the evening of the 11th inst. her daughter came to her and said there were two children from tho Burnham Industrial School in the bar. At first she was unwilling to. take them in, but as tho night was very wet, and the two girls thinly clad, one of them without a hat, she allowed them to remain out of compassion. She gave t’;enieome biscuits and hot port wine, and scut them to bod. She also told her daughter to go over to Mr Bishop, the station master, and telegraph to Burnham where tho girls were, that they might bo taken back in tho morning. When the master of the school called for tho children. She (witness) fold him they had gone to bed, and suggested that they had better remain until the morning. As he objected to to this, she told tho

children to get ready to accompany thw master, and while he was waiting for them the girls escaped out of the window. There was no intention on her part of harboring the children, and what she had done she had done out of charity. One of the girls said she had been so badly treated at the school that she would sooner sleep in the bush than return. The Bench held that the charge had not been sustained, and at once dismissed it.

LYTTELTON. Monday, August 23. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M.] Civil Business,-— A case of eviction came U P # this morning before the Court, an order being granted. The parties concerned were Talbot v DeOosta. Mr H. N. Nalder for plaintiff. The defendant was not present, G. Talbot said he was owner of the property. He gave defendant written notice to quit the premises on the 30th July. She wanted to remain there until the 29th instant, until after she got a discharge from the Bankruptcy Court. He (plaint S) held a bill of sale over her furniture, which defendant wished him to give to her so that she could hold a sale of the furniture. Ho claimed no rent. M. Mayze said he formerly owned the property in question, and had conveyed it to Mr Talbot. Defendant at that time was a weekly tenant. The Court made the order, defendant to be out of the premises by Wednesday, at 5 p.m. Wheatley v Bilby, claim £lO. Mr H. N. Nalder for plaintiff. Ordered to make payment withia a fortnight, in default one month’s gaol. Counsel’s fee, £1 Is, and costs.