MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1849, 26 January 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, January 26

[Before G. L. Leo, Esq., Dr. Deamer, Dr. Brins, and D. Caro, E>q., J.P.’s.] Dbunk and Dibokdeuly. —Three first offenders were fined 5s each, and two more seasoned ones 10s each.

Stealing Jbwblleky. —Bernard Ncary, on remand, was charged with stealing a quantity of jewellery, value £l2, the property of Hugh - Doherty. Mr Neck appeared for the accused. The following evidence, in addition to_ that already published, was now taken ;—Siegismund Cohen, licensed pawnbroker, Colombo street, stated that the prisoner came into his place on the 14th instant and wanted to pawn some jewellery, the same produced in Court. Recognising the jewellery as some that had been in his possession fifteen or sixteen months, witness questioned tho prisoner as to his right to it, and he stated that it was his property and that he had won it in a raffia at Adelaide. As the jewellery only left his possession last November, and the prisoner stuck to his story, witness sent for Detective Neil and narrated the circumstances to him, and the detective then took the pri goner into custody. By advice of Mr Neck the prisoner reserved his defence, and was committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court. Lakoeny. —Joseph Barreira was chargi d wi fi stealing a pair of boots, value 20s, the property of Daniel Herlihy. Daniel Herlihy deposed that he was a laborer, employed at Cashmere, where the prisoner was cook. On the 15th December he purchased a new pair, and the following day saw them on the accused. Accused said they were his own, and had bought them on the 13th. He refused to give them up, and witness then sent for a detective and gave him into custody. Detective Neil deposed that on the 16th of December ho accompanied the last witness to Cashmere. Ho told the accused he was charged with stealing a pair of boots from Daniel Herlihy. Accused said he had bought the boots for 14s from a swagger the previous Wednesday, At this stage Mr Joyce got up and said that tho prisoner was in a very weak state and unable to question the witnesses properly, he, therefore, as ami:us curiae, would put a few questions to the witnesses on behalf of the accused. He then cross questioned tho detective with a view of showing that there were two pairs of boots, and that the accused had mis-

taken those belonging to the prosecutor for his own. Miles Byan deposed that on the 15th of December the last witness told him he believed the prisoner had on his boots. Witness went to the prisoner and recognised the boots ho had on as the prosecutors. The prisoner said he had bought them from a swagger andjrefused to give them up. Witness told him they were Herlihy’s, and advised him to give them to him. When the prosecutor went for the detective, the accused took the boots off his feet and wanted to return them. Cross-examined by Mr Joyce—The witness said the prosecutor was to a certain extent answerable for any person going on to the premises occupied by the men. The previous night several swaggers slept on the premises in a room near the prosecutor’s. Mr Joyce addressed the Bench on behalf of the prisoner for the purpose of showing that although the boots probably belonged to the prosecutor, there was no evidence of any felonious intention on behalf of the prisoner, who no doubt told the truth when he said be hsd purchased them from one of the swaggers. Tnere was a great deal of doubt in the case, and ho submitted the prisoner ought to be given the benefit of it. He already nearly lost his life over it, and the ends of justice would be met by cautioning the prisoner and discharging him. The Bench did not think there was much doubt about the prisoner’s guilt, but that he had already been sufficiently punished. He would therefore be discharged. The prisoner was then charged with attempting to commit suicide, and by Mr Joyce’s advice pleaded guilty. After Mr Joyce had briefly addressed the Bench on behalf of the prisoner, the latter wa" cautioned and discharged. Miscellaneous. —Nicholas Columbus was charged with travelling between Southbridge and Leeston on the railway on the 13th inst. without having a ticket or having paid his fare. Mr Joyce appeared for the prosecution. The guard of the train stated that the defendant was travelling on a return ticket from Leeston to Christchurch, but not one from Southbridge to Leeston. In his justification the defendant said he offered to pay the witness the difference between the fares, but the latter refused to take it. Witness ■aid the defendant did not offer the money until he challenged him with not having a ticket, and as he was evidently attempting to defraud the railway he considered it was his duty to report him. Fined 10s. Mat Goodger, a cabman, was summoned for plying for hire within the railway premises on the 30th ult., without bsdng duly authorised. There was no appearance of the defendant, who was fined 20s. James Schrader pleaded guilty to making use of obscene language in a public place, Hr Joyce addressed the Bench on his behalf, and a fine of 20s was infl oted. John Barrett, on the evidence of Constable Henry, was fined 10s for neglecting to keep a light on the tramway works in Cathedral Square between sunset and sunrise. William Hayward pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s for plying for hire between termini other than he was licensed to without giving notice of his intention. John Harper, similarly informed against on two charges, was fined 20s and costs. Michael Hamilton was summoned for non-attendance on his cab in Gloucester street. The defendant pleaded that he was not a licensed driver, and was driving his own private vehicle at the time. Mr Inspector Hickson asked that the information in that case might be amended or the case dismissed. In the latter case the defendant would be proceeded against on the above charge of driving without a license, and also with leaving the cab unattended. The information was dismissed as the inspector of cabs proved that the cab No. 62 was unlicensed. Joseph Gilbert, summoned for plying for hire elsewhere than on the public stand, was fined 10s.

Obubitt to Animats. —William Kilday was charged with cruelty to animals by leaving his horse two days in the publio street with a broken leg without taking any means for its remoxal. A witness named Henry Workman and Constables Mahoney and Brookes proved that for nearly three days the animal had been suffering from a broken leg, and beyond a little water given by some persons living near no relief had been given it. The horse was ultimately shot by Constable Brookes. The defendant called evidence to show that he had arranged with a man named D uffy to take the animal away and relieve him of all responsibility. The Bench held that even if this was the case the defendant was not relieved of his responsibility. His remedy was against Duffy by civil process. The defendant was fined £3 and casts. Thbbatbning A Wipe. —William McMillan was again brought up on the charge of threatening the life of his wife. As it appeared that the defendant, since the case had been previously heard, had not gone near his wife or molested her, the case was dismissed. Wandebinq Hobsbs and Oattlb.— The usual fines were imposed on the following persons for allowing horses and cattle to wander at large ;—John Brooks (two convictions), George Holt, and John McEwen. A number of private summonses were heard and disposed of.