MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1768, 20 October 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, October 20. [Before R. H. Webb, Esq., and O. G. Parker, Esq., J.P.’s.] Drtjne and Disorderly.—Two female offenders of bad antecedents were sent to prison for the respective terms of fourteen days and three months. A first offender was cautioned and discharged. One drunkard was fined 10s.

Inciting to Foegeev. —Albert Godfrey Saunders was charged with aiding and abetting and counselling one Edward James to forge a deed of conveyance in Christchurch on March 28th, 1879. Mr B. D. Thomas appeared for the accused, and requested a remand until Wednesday morning. The accused had been arrested on a warrant issued at Timaru, and a remand was necessary in order that the other party implicated might be brought to Christchurch to onswer the alleged charge. Mr Inspector Hickson submitted that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Christchurch Bench to deal with the charge, which would have to be investigated when the information had been laid. The accused was remanded until Wednesday morning, his present bail being allowed, viz., himself in £SOO and two sureties of £250 each.

Obscene Language. —Patrick Broderick Yioenzo Stanno, and James McGregor were brought up on separate charges for making use of obscene language. Broderick was fined 10a, Stanno 40a, and McGregor 30a. Eeeach oe the Peace. —Robert Thompson was charged with committing a breach of the peace within view of a constable. A fine of 20s was inflicted.

Laeoenx. —Mary Anne Smith was charged with stealing two umbrellas, value ss, the property of Marshall Wyatt. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and, in consideration of its being her first offence, was sentenced to foureon days’ imprisonment. /

Beeaoh oe the Licensing Act. —Charles Dunsford, licensee of the Boyal Hotel, was summoned for having, on the 12th instant, kept his licensed house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours. Sergeant Hughes stated that, from information he had received, he visited the hotel on the evening in question. He saw half a dozen persona in the bar passage, but ho saw no drinking going on. There was one glass of drink standing on the ledge of the bar half door, which Ithe landlord said was his. A witness named Williams, who was in the hotel that night with his son-in-law, said he bad one glass of lemonade and beer at the invitation of the landlord. A Mr Clark, son-in-law of the last witness, said he also had one glass of beer by invitation of the landlord. No money was paid for these drinks, and he saw none pass. The Bench held that the information had not been sustained, and dismissed the case. Abusive Language. Burgess was charged with using abusive language to Henry Thomas Hoy. The parties were neighbors, and the case in question arose through a dispute about a road which defendant had closed by putting a leather strap or rein across it. Henry Thomas Hoy swore that Burgess used abusive language towards him, calling him a b thief, &c., and tolling him ho was his master. Ho also drove off some cows belonging to complainant from a section of land which ho was privileged to fgraze, calling complainant every vile name in the vocabulary. By accused —Didn’t you insult me in the first place. Complainant—No. Accused—What did you say to mo. Complainant—On my oath I said nothing to you ; instead of being an enemy to him, your Worship, I have lent him money. After considerable altercation Philip Oliver was called, and said he heard Burgess swearing awful, calling other a damned rogue and a thief. I saw h’ui drive away the cows, saying he would drive them to hell. I swear Burgess called complainant a thief. By accused —I didn’t say I knew anything about your case. I said I was summoned, andshould toll the truth. Defendant being sworn said ,tho whole grievance arose through a thoroughfare being blocked up. About twelve months ago when I took my land complainant blocked up the read. The Bench dismissed the case, saying it never ought to have been brought into Court. Uneeqisteeed Dog. —Michael Hurgin was fined 20s for having in his possession an unregistered dog. James Jones, similarly summoned, was fined the same amount. Wandebino Cattle. John Withell, Daniel Macfarlane, George Ell, H. McAlpine > Gomorsal John Cuff, A. Wright, John Campbell, W. Bowden, W. White, J. O. Dewey, W. Wells, John Mullins and Charles Gaason were fined for allowing cattle to wander at Laeeikinissi at Speingston. John Everest was charged with behaving in a manner calculated to provoke a broach of the peace. Beaumont, sworn, said—As I waa riding on a skittish filly I saw defendant and two or three others standing on the side of the road ; a stone was thrown at the hind legs of the filly, and followed Jby others. Had the stone hit the filly I donbt not I

with defendant, who was abusive. I frequently have to pass defendant’s house. On my way bach he repeated his abuse. I hove been subject to repeated annoyance from him, ana I want protection. From his conduct Xam in fear of suffering injury at his hands. John P. Goodrich sworn, said—l remember on the evening referred to, when in company with accused, as Beaumont came up, ho said he would throw a stone at him. I tried to advise him not. He threw two stones. The first went near the filly’s front feet. Beaumont said he ought to bo ashamed of himself. George Goodrich sworn, said—l saw John Everest jerk the atone after Beaumont. He did not use much force in it. I heard no conversation about Beaumont. By Mr Neck —I heard accused say—“ Here comes Mr Beaumont.” I told my father about tho stone throwing. Eowell sworn, said —I am a farmer. On the evening of October 9th X saw Mr Beaumont coming up the He wished aneighbor standing next mo good night. I saw accused pick up a stone, which rolled into the drain. He used no force in throwing it, I was a chain and a half from them. I have heard that Beaumont has often been annoyed, and has charged defendant with it. By the Bench—Tho stone was not thrown at the house. Ido not think it was intended to annoy. I think they were thinking of playing at cricket. Mr Neck—“ I see ; and making the horse the wicket.” Mr Bowell—l remember the 9th October. I stood about a chain and a half from tho house. Only one atone was thrown. lam sure no harm was intended. lam sure Beaumont saw us all. It is the most “ triflingest” thing ever brought to Court. I know the lad well, and there is no harm in him. By Mr Neck—l saw him pick up the atene, and am sure there was only one. John Everest —I bowled a stone, not at Beaumont —only across the road to the drain. He heard the splash of the stone, and said “He would come back and wring my b—nook.” I bowled two stones, but neither at Beaumont. I swear neither stone went near the horse. I was 100 feet from him. I remember saying, “ Here comes Mr Beaumont; I will bowl a stone after him.” I swear I never said “ throw” but “bowl.” I had no intention of annoying or hurting Beaumont. Mr Neck addressed the Bench on behalf of his client, urging a conviction, and that accused bo bound over to keep the peace. Mr McConnell then addressed the Bench on behalf of Everest, urging that tho case bo dismfssed. Fined 10s and coats ; solicitor’s fees not allowed. On application, witness Goodrich was allowed ss. Offence against a Eoad Boaed. —Eobt. Eobb was charged that he did remove and alter soil and surface of the North road, such road being under the jurisdiction of the Avon Eoad Board. Mr Harper for defendant. Mr Beatson, surveyor to Avon Eoad Board, sworn, said—From information received, I went and saw that a fence had been removed, and the upper surface of the road had been removed also. 1 asked defendant what authority he had. He said he required none. I gave him three days’ notice to make good the damage, and on my going back I found he had not done so, but was still removing the shingle. It would cost £2 to £3 to rpeair the damage. He cut down the embankment to get down to the river bed near White’s bridge for shingle. By the Bench—l have not been instructed to claim for damages. By Mr Harper—lt was a used road off which he took tho shingle. The Government had fenced off part of the road, which was unused. His action caused great annoyance to several ratepayers. Ido not know that it has caused any actual loss to any ratepayers, but if a fresh came down the Waimakariri the damage might be serious, A witness corroborated Mr Beatson saying he knew what had been done, but where and by whom he did not know. Smith deposed—l did not see defendant remove tho piles or fence, but I saw him remove the soil. W. Eleaher said—l am chairman of the Avon Eoad Board. About 2nd October Mr Smith came to me and complained of accused’s action, fearing the result if a fresh came down the river. He also corroborated Mr Beutaou's evidence. Mr Harper claimed that the case be dismissed on technical grounds, contending that it was not proved that it was a road in the accepted sense. Case dismissed. Bebaoh of thb Licensing Act— William Collier, licensee of the White Swan Hotel, was charged with selling liquor during prohibited hours. Mr Thomas appeared for the defendant. The alleged offence was committed early on the morning of Sunday, the 12th inst. The evidence of Sergeant Hughes and Constable Williams was taken, to the effect that the latter had been served with a glass of beer by a lodger at the hotel named, Hickey, who had invited him in. The information was laid by the sergeant, who found the constable off his beat, and suspecting where he was, had gone into the hotel to look for him. Charles Hickey, lodging at the White Swan, said that on the morning in question the constable asked him if he could have a drink, and he took him inside. The barman served him with a pint of beer, and be exhibited to them his stuff and handcuffs, trying tho latter on to the witness to show how small his wrist was. The constable had a second pint of beer, tho landlord being present. After that Sergeant Hughes came in. Since the occurence tho constable had called on the witness, and asked him not to go hard against him, as he would be discharged. When the constable told the Bench that he (witness) had given him the beer ho had not spoken the truth. No money was taken for the drink. The barman corroborated the evidence of the last witness, but said the landlord did not see the beer given to the constable. Both tho landlord and the barman had requested him to leave the house. Mr Collier, examined, swore that he saw no drink given to tho constable, but he had been told by his barman that the constable had been repeatedly asked to go out, and at last had done so very reluctantly. The Bench fined Mr Collier £2 and 2s costs, reduced to that sum on account of the favorable report of the police of the way in which the licensee conducted his house generally. LYTTELTON. Monday, Octobee 20. [Before J. Beswick, Esq., E.M., and J. T. Eouae, Esq, J.P.] Deunk. —An offender was presented for being very drunk on Saturday night. Fined 10s, or twenty-four hours imprisonment. Civil Case. — v John Bell, claim £27 15s, wages for services as seaman on board the Sovereign Queen; admitted. Judgment for plaintiff, and immediate execution granted at tho request of Mr H. W. Nalder.