MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1785, 10 November 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OHHISTOHUaOH. Monday, November 10. [Before Q. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] Drunk and Disorderly. A female drunkard, just out of gaol, was fined 40s. Embezzlement. —Francis Hopkins Valpy, remanded from the 3rd inst., was charged with embezzling £5 16s, the money of the Christchurch section of the Railway Employes Benefit Society. On the application of Mr Inspector Hickson a further remand of one week was granted. Larceny. Thomas Gallon, with three aliases, on remand, was chargod as follows: (1) With stealing clothes trom a clothes line, and three blacking_ brushes, value £1 17e, the property of Daniel Granger Ward ; (2) Stealing a watch,Rvalue £5, the'property of David Gallatly ; (3) Stealing a cage and canary bird, value 355, the property of Ralph Simoon Raphe el. la the first case Edgar Ward, son of the prosecutor, D. Q. Ward, architect, |of Carlton place, deposed that on the morning of Tuesday, the 4th inst, a quantity of clothes were missed from off the clothes line in the back yard. Next saw the clothes in the Police Depot. Tbe_ shirt produced was the actual property of witness. The brushes also were stolen at the same time. Altogether the property stolen waa valued at 355. George Mapstone, a general dealer, living in Durham street, remembered the prisoner coming to him on the 4th inst., and selling him some shirts, which he subsequently gave up to Constable O’Connor. The shirts were damp. He said they were his own property. Witness gave either 4s or 4s 6i for the clothes. The prisoner was accompanied by an elderly man. Constable O’Connor deposed that he arrested the prisoner in the bar of the Queen’s Hotel on Tuesday, the 6th inst. Told prisoner with what he was charged. He denied stealing the articles. The prisoner pleaded not. guilty, and said that ho purchased the clothes and brushes from a man who was now undergoing a sentence for larceny. In the second case David Gallatly, a farmer residing at Lincoln, deposed that he came to Christchurch on the sth instant. He got drunk, and in the course of the afternoon laid down under the trees in Oxford terrace to get a sleep. He woke about sunset, and found that he had had his watch stolen while he was asleep. It was in his vest pocket, attached to a steel chain, when he laid down. The watch was wrenched from off the ring but the chain was left attached to his vest. George Maplestone, the witness in the previous case, stated that on the 6th instant ho purchased the watch from the prisoner. Gave him 7s 6d and a pipe to hoot for the watch. The same evening gave the watch to Constable O’Connor. The prisoner said the watch was his own. The prisoner in his defence accounted for his possession of the watch in the same manner as ho obtained the clothes. R. 8. Raphael, the prosecutor in the third case, residing at the comer of Madras and Cashel streets, deposed that he missed a canary and cage from off the verandah of his house last Friday evening. They were worth 355. The next time he saw the bird and cage waa at the Police Depot. The bird and cage in Court were the same that witness lost, and ho recovered them through reading a paragraph about them in one of the newspapers. George Mapstone repeated his evidence as to having purchased the bird and cage from the prisoner, and afterwards giving them up to the police. Witness gave prisoner 7a 6d for them. Constable O’Conner gave evidence as to the day on which he received the stolen property. His Worship utterly disbelieved the story told by the prisoner that he had purchased the articles from another man. There was no doubt that he had systematically preyed on the public, and had been convicted on various charges in Dunedin, Temuka, Ashburton, and Amberley. He would be sentenced to the full penalty, viz., six months with hard labor in each case ; in all eighteen months’ imprisonment with hard labor. Breach: op Public-house Ordinance. — J. A. Hansman, licensee of the Feathers Hotel, Addington, was charged with selling liquor during prohibited hours, viz , on Sunday, October 26th, contrary to the Public House Ordinance. There was a second charge of the same nature. The defendant neither admitted or denied the charge, but said he was absent from home on the day in question. A man named John Young said be was served with beer on the day in question by the de'endant’s barman. A man and woman named Rd. Palmer and Minnie Black were with him at the time. Wm. Adams, barman to the defendant, said that he remembered some persons coming from Tai Tapu in drags to his master’s hotel on the day in question. They were emigrants, and said they came to sec their friends in the depot. Witness served them with drink. Served other persons, who represented themselves to be travellers, with liquor, in the course of the day. Mr Hansman was absent in Lyttleton. This was the case; the second, which was of a similar nature was withdrawn. The defendant was fined £5 and costs in all £5 14s. Henry Garland, licensee of the White Horae Hotel, waa also summoned for selling liquor on Sunday, October 26th, contrary to the Police Ordinance. This case was similar to the last; the same witness, John Young, had represented himself to be a traveller, and by that means got drink served to him. The Magistrate had no doubt a clear breach of the Ordinance had been committed, and fined the defendant £5, with costs Bs. Breach of Hackney Carriage By-law. —W. Penfold was summoned, on two informations, for leaving his licensed cab unattended. There was no appearance of the defendant. The cases had been previously gone into, and the defendant was now fined 10s and costs in each case. Illegally Shooting Game.—William Henwood, for shooting and killing a wild duck contrary to the Protection of Animals Act, w»s fined 60s and costs. Dog Nuisance.—Walter Merson was fined 10s for allowing a dog to wander at large in the North Park. Assault.—J. W. Treadwell was summoned for assaulting Earnest Cox at Hazeldean on on the 28th October. There was a cross summons not yet served, but heard by mutual consent against Ernest Cox for assaulting one of Mr J. W. Treadwell’s children. After hearing the evidence on both sides the dedefendant in the first case was fined 5s and costs, and in the second case the lad Cox was reprimanded, and cautioned that if brought before the Court again he would be severely dealt with. Case dismissed.