MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1757, 7 October 1879, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, Octobbb 7. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.J Dbttnk and Dxsoedebdy. —A woman with thirty-seven previous convictions, was fined 20s. One man was fined 10s. Failing to Pbovidb. John Thomas Burbery, remanded from Oaraaru, was charged with failing to provide his wife and three children with adequate means of support. The complainant, Elizabeth Burbery, said her husband left her last January. He sent money for her support up to last April. •Sin.ie then she had received nothing from film, and she and her children had been supported by charitable aid from the Govern ment. She did not wish to press the charge if her husband would undertake not to leave her again, as before that ho had been a good husband to her. The defendant said ho had been working at a job that had not turned out profitably, and just as it began to pay ho was arrested. It was true he had left his wife without means, but to an extent he had trusted to the promise of a friend to assist her. His Worship said he would not class the defendant amongst those loafers whom he was in the habit of punishing with imprisonment and hard labor, and if he would undertake to pay the arrears due to the Charitable Aid Board he would allow the case to stand over until December 4th, and give him a chance of making some satisfactory arrangement for his wife’s future support. The case was then adjourned until the date mentioned. liAHCßHY. —William Trembath was charged with stealing two hand saws, value 6s, the property of Isaac Burt. Mr Thomas appeared for the accused. Elizabeth _ Burt, wife of Isaac Burt, gardener, residing at Bingsland, said that the accused, a laboring man, was her next door neighbor. On the 24th of last Juno she saw the accused on the premises of her husband. It was at early morning, and he had in his hand the two saws produced, which he took into his own premises. Missed at the same time the clothes prop produced in Court. The accused had no right on her premises. At the time the articles were taken witness’ husband was either at Akaroa or Little River. In crossexamination, the witness admitted that the clothes prop was taken off her premises in May last. She had seen it frequently used by the wife of the accused, and had taken no steps for its recovery. Isaac Burt, a boy about whose age there was a discrepancy, he claiming to be ten, and bis mother saying he was fourteen years of age, said he saw the accused take away the saws under the circumstances detailed by the last witness. Isaac Burt, sen., identified the saws in Oomt, but could not swear to the clothes prop. Had asked the accused several times tor the saws, hut he had denied that he had them. Was up-country when the saws were taken away. On his return in July he searched for the saws, but could not find them, and at last found out, about a week ago, that “ this gentleman,” meaning the accused, had taken them. It was bis wife that told him the accused had taken the saws. The witness, who prevaricated very much much, said he had asked the accused twice for the saws, and he bad denied having them, and eaid if he had them he would burn them rather than give them up. Acting Detective Maurice O’Connor said he searched the accused’s house the previous day, and found the saws, one of them, accused said, was in the house when he came into it. Accused said he had but the one saw, and witness found it hanging up in the place where the accused said he would. He knew nothing about the other one. In defence the accused’s wife said they had rented the house from the prosecutors. When they took possession of the house there was a little saw in it, which the prosecutor’s wife ■aid she could keep for her use to saw meat with. Believed the small saw produced was the one that was in the house when she and her husband took it. Witness had to leave the house last Monday through annoyance caused by the prosecutor’s wife. The prop was tte property of the witness, who had occasionally lent it to Mrs Burt. This, witness was positive of. Never heard of the "loss of the saws until the previous day, when her husband was taken away. Detective O’Connor recalled, said he found the second saw between a barrel of coal and.tbe wall of the kitchen. Mrs Trembath recalled, said that the second saw was not in the house when she left the house for good last Friday. She had never seen it in the house during her occupation ef it. A witness named George Bolt stated that the accused and his wife bad resided with him for two years, and during that time the the clothes prop alleged to have been stolen was in their possession. He could swear to it. The wife of the last witness swore positively to the truth of the previous witness’ statement as to the ownership of the prop. John Wilson deposed to seeing the prosecutor throwing stones at the house of Mr Trembath, and using abusive language towards Mrs Trembath. Constable Hill deposed that to his knowledge the prosecutor and his wife nourished a bad feeling against the accused and his wife, and were generally regarded in the neighborhood as aggressive and quarrelsome people. Hia Worship said he had very little doubt in his own mind about the case, and the accused need have no fear that he left the Court with any stain upon hia character. The case was enveloped in some mystery as to how the second saw got into the house, but he had no doubt that the accused never took or intended to steal the articles. The case would be dismissed.