MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1865, 14 February 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Saturday, Fkdeuaht 14. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.] DuNACY. —Thomas Hyndes was charged -with lunacy from the consequences of drink, and was remanded for medical treatment. Using Obscene Language. Theresa Dixon was charged with making use of obscene language in a public place. The arresting constable proved the use of the language, and the offender was fined 20s. Valueless Cheque.—Alfred Shaw, alias Richards, alias “ Rattlin the Reefer,” was charged with obtaining goods by means of a valueless cheque from Solomon David Nathan. Sergeant Monce said he had a clerk from the Bank waiting to prove that the check was a valueless one, but that Mr Nathan was not present, as he did not wish to prosecute. The Sergeant said that for the future the police would not under similar cases prosecute, but they had done so because there was a previous conviction against the prisoner, and the crime of passing valueless cheques was becoming very prevalent. His Worship, after examining the cheque, said he wondered how any tradesman could have taken such a document under any circumstances, and expressed his belief that Mr Nathan was afraid of being laughed at if he appeared in Court. Sergt. Morice said the man was drunk when ho tendered the cheque. His Worshipsaid, that knowing that, he wondered bow Mr Nathan should have had anything to do with the prisoner. Under the circumstances, the prisoner should have the benefit of the doubt, and his Worship cautioned and discharged him.

Labcent. —Jane Hyland was charged with stealing three jngs, the property of Alfred Cutler. Mr A. Thompson appeared for the prisoner. Alfred Cutler, a dealer, residing in Kilmore street, said ho sold crockery about the city in a cart. About the sth instant he was at the house of a Mrs O’Leary with his crockery cart. He sold some things to Mrs O’Leary and went away. He then missed two jngs, the same produced. Yesterday witness went to Mrs O'Leary’s house again and she bought some more things, for which she settled. Asked Mrs O’Leary it she knew anything of the missing jugs and she replied “No,” she had sufficient money to buy jugs. Witness then went away and shortly after missed another little jug. Before leaving the spot witness noticed that the accused had something under her apron which she took inside the house. Went yesterday afternoon with Detective O'Connor to where prisoner was stopping. The jugs wore worth 6#. When cross-examined by Mr Thompson the witness said that when ho went to _ Mre •O’Leary’s house the previous day, with a detective, Mrs O’Leary told the prisoner that if she had the jugs to bring them out and give them up. Detective Maurice O’Connor -said that he went to the bouse of Mrs O’Leary the previous day about five o’etook in the afternoon. Ho was accompanied by the prosecutor and Constable Ryan. The prisoner, who was servant to Mrs O'Leary was there, and witness told them what his business was. Mrs O’Leary said it was the child that brought the jug in. The prisoner was told she bad been seen to bring something in, and ■he said “ Yes, I brought in the small jug. I am sorry I had anything to do with it, as it would be of no use to me any way. I did not steal ■the other two,and MrsO’Leary knows Ididnt.”’ Mrs O’Leary brought the small jug out of her bedroom and gave it to witness. Constable Ryan corroborated tho evidence of the last witness. For the defence Mr Thompson called Elizabeth O’Leary, who swore that tho accused was a servant in her employ. She was an honest, pure girl, but fond of a ” lark.” Did not know of any jugs that had been brought into her house by the prisoner. About 11 o’clock tho previous day the prisoner told her she had taken three jugs belonging to tho prosecutor to “ taunt” him—she meant to vex him. The prosecutor and the detective cuds in an hour later. The prisoner said she had taken the jugs for a “ lark,” and she {witness) said it was “no lark.” Didn’t I?” (to the prisoner). Prisoner —“Yes.” The first time the prosecutor came to the house, eho and the prosecutor was larking together. When she (witness) told tho prisoner she had two jugs in the house that did not belong to her, she (prisoner) replied that she had taken them from that “ fool of a fellow ” for a lark. Yesterday she (meaning prisoner) said she would give them back to the prosecutor. When the prosecutor told witness that ho had lost two jugs, she replied ■ho knew nothing of them, and it was after that that the prisoner said she had taken the jags by way of a lark. Mr Thompson—Was it one, two or three hours after the prosecutor’s first visit yesterday that he returned with the detective ? Witness —Yes. It’s the first time I was ever in a Court, and God keep me out of it again (laughter). To Sergeant Morice—The jugs were in my bedroom. They were taken out of the scullery. I never used them, as I have plenty of jugs. I won’t be in the Court for a month again (laughter). The prisoner put the jugs in the the bedroom. Mr Thompson—You are a widow, I believe?” Witness —“Yes, and I intend to remain one.” To Sergeant Morice —“ Ido not keep a boarding-house, but my sons board with me.” Conrad Burgess, a printer, residing at Mrs O’Leary’s, said he was in bed reading the first time the pedlar came to the house. He talked to the prisoner in a manner witness considered improper, and had he been up he should have spoken to him about it, as it was he intended to have settled with him for it, Mr Thompson said ha was instructed that the jogs had been taken by way of joke, and there was no evidence before the Court to justify ths assumption of a felonious intention. The prisoner had acted foolishly, but not dishonestly. His Worship asked Sergeant Morice if there was any previous conviction against the prisoner, and he answered in the negative. His Worship said the Bench were of opinion that the prisoner had certainly taken the jogs with a dishonest intention, but as it was a first offence, and they did not wish to send her to prison to herd with other criminals,') she J would be dealt with very leniently. She would be sentenced to twenty-fours’ imprisonment, which, taking into account the time she had been locked up already, would entitle her to be liberated the same afternoon. She was then removed, and Elizabeth O’Leary was charged with receiving the jugs, knowing the same to be stolen. The evidence given was substantially a repetition of what the witnesses had deposed to in the preceding case. Detective O’Connor said that they recovered the third jug by means of the prisoner in the previous case, who went out and brought it in from the house of Mrs Evans, a neighbor, where she had taken it with some milk in. Jane Hyland being sworn admitted that she had taken all the three jugs from the cart of the prosecutor, and taken them into Mrs O’Leary’s house, who was not present. In fact she (Mrs O’Leary) did not know the jugs were there until the previous day after the prosecutor had gone, when she (witness) told her she had taken them for a lark. The witness admitted that when the detective was in the house, she (witness) said it was Mrs O’Leary that ought to go to Mrs Evans’ house for the jug, but when Sergeant Morice pressed her for an explanation of her meaning, she either would not or could not give an answer. The Bench said there was no occasion to press it. Witness said it was she that took the jug into the prisoner’s bedroom. They had previously been in the cheffonier in the diningroom, but the prisoner knew nothing of their presence there, and did not know they were m her bedroom until told by witness. The Bench held that the prosecution had broken down and discharged the prisoner.