MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1866, 16 February 1880, Page 2

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

OHRIfITOHUBOH. Monday, Fbbbpaby 16 ("Before Q. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M., and J. E. Parker, Esq, J.P.J Dejjnk and Disobdbely.—A first offender was fined ss. One woman, charged with drunkenness, had been for a month an inmate of the hospital from injuries she had received to her head before she was arrested. The police gave evidence of her condition when arrested, and she was now discharged. One offender was charged with being drunk in a railway carriage and grossly misconducting himself to the annoyance of the other pas* sengers. There was no previous conviction, and a fine of 20s was indicted. Lunacy.—Bridget Leader was charged with being a lunatic from drink. There was no appearance of lunacy on the part of the woman, but from the evidence of Mr Martin, assistant-clerk of the Court, it appeared she was of a very violent temper, and grossly intemperate in her habits, ill-using her children and neglecting her home. The charge of lunacy was withdrawn, and the woman was severely cautioned, and discharged with a recommendation to abstain from drink or she would be bound over to keep the peace, or in default take the consequence. VaQBANCY. David Grey was charged under the Vagrant Act with having no lawful visible meaus of support. From the evidence of Dr. Patrick, it appeared that he intruded himself on his premises on two occasions, disturbing the house and frightening _ his children. He cautioned him the first time, but on a repetition of his intrusion, he (witness) in self-defence gave him in charge. The accused said he was a hardworking man, but had been drinking, and did not know what he was doing. A month’s imprisonment, with hard labor. Sunday Teading. Henry Marks was charged with selling fruit on the Sabbath. This case, the particulars of which have been published, was adjourned from the 12th inst. for Mr Mellish to consider the law points raised by Mr Stringer for the defence. Judg« ment was held over for the present. Beeach of City By-laws.—John Barrett was charged on s : x informal ions for neglecting to keep a lighten certain street obstructions in connection with the tramway works. The defendant pleaded guilty in each instance, but said in every instance but one it was after 3 a.m. when the lights were out, and the other at eight o’clock in the evening, just as the man was going to light it. In one instance the watchman told him he had seen one of the lamps comp’etely smashed, and the man who did it got clear away. A fine of 10s was inflicted in each case. Miscellaneous. William Wilson was summoned for driving a horse and buggy across the railway line at Pananui when a train was approaching. The offence was admitted, but the accused pleaded ia extenuation that the view of the line was obscured by the trees. He heard no noise, as the steam of the engine was shut off, to warn him of the approach of the train; moreover, since the gatekeepers on the line had be?n removed there was no one to warn persons of approaching danger, and there was a constant risk of accidents happening. He had no intention of infringing the law or of risking his own life or the persons who were in the buggy with him. The Bench, after the explanation, dismissed the case. Bathing Within View of a Public Place.—George Parsons, Alfred Piper, and George Wakefield, were summoned for bathing in the River Heathcote within view of a public place on the Bth inst., between the hours of 8 a,m. and 8 p.m. The defendants admitted that they had been bathing, but they were out of view of the public. Constable Hughes gave evidence that such was not they case, as they were in view of Mr Anderson’s house, near Wilson’s Bridge. There was another information against the defendants of a similar offence on the 6th inst. Mr Anderson, sworn, said that where the accused bathed was a public place, frequented by women and children. Men were in the habit of bathing ia front of his house, and seemed to delight in exhibiting themselves in front of his windows. On Sunday his family were kept prisoners to the house from the nuisance. Mr Mills, another resident in the locality, gave similar evidence. He had seen as many a a sixty men at a time. They not only bathed, but ran about the fields naked, and frequently used disgusting language. The noise on Sundays was absolutely shame■» ful. As the Bench considered that they had been brought as test cases, and the facts had been proved, a fine of Is and costs was inflicted. Beeach op Stamp Act.—Michael Macnamara was informed against for giving an unstamped receipt contrary to the Act. The offence was admitted, hut the defendant said he had not a stamp at the the time he signed the receipt, but he offered a properly stamped receipt subsequently. Stephen Card sworn, said ho had never taken a stamped receipt from the defendant. As it transpired in evidence that nearly six months had elapsed before the defendant had offered the witness the stamped receipt, a fine of 20s was inflicted. Dbivino Ovrk the Footpath.—John Wright was fined 10s for driving on the asphalts footpath, and to pay the cost of the damage done. Illegally Fishing in the Avon.—H. L. Wagcer ai d Alfred Wagner were si amoned for fishing in the Domain on the 9rh inst. Mr Stringer appeared for the defendants. There was a second information against Alfred Wagner for fishing witbont a license, which was admitted. David Douglas, a ranger, gave evidence of the fact that the defendants were fishing between the Hospital and the Riccarton drain within the reserve. They were fishing in a boat. This was the complainant’s case. Mr Stringer submitted that there was no evidence that the defendant had not the permission of the Domain Board to fish j secondly, that no notice had been put up to show that the part where the defendants were fi.«hidg was a prohibited spot; and lastly, it had not bein proved that the river was a part of the D itnain. Mr Mellish agreed that the complainants had closed their case without bringing formard the evidence mentioned by Mr Stringer, and the Bench had no option but to dismiss the case. Richard Brown was summoned for fishing in the Domain on the 9lh inst. Defendant said he had a license, but did not know where 10 fish. This case was also dismissed for lack o£ evidence. Alfred Wagner was then informed against for fishing on the 19th January and 4th February without a license Mr String » for the defendant. Jacob Wagner sworn, said when ho took out tl e license at Mr Farr’e office he was asked his sou’s initials. He lock cut two licenses—one in his own name.

and the other in the name of his son Eiwin. Tho latter had never fished, but his brother Alfred had used the license, under the impression that he was acting according to law. Tho Bench held that justice would be met by the infliction of a flue of 20s, the amount of the license fee. This would apply to both informations. Another information for fishing with ground bait was withdrawn. Albert Brooks was informed against for fishing in the Avon on tb« 16rh Jenuiry without a li:en«e. Mr Deacon for the defendant. David Douglas deposed that defendant was on tho domain side of the river, and it was after twelve at night. He had no license. Mr Deacon raised the point that there ■was no evidence to show that trout were protected. He also submitted that the bylaws were ultra vires. Mr Mellish pointed out that clause 5 of the “regulations” applied to all fish, which, of course, included trout. The offence was for fishing without a license, which applied to any river or for any description of fish where salmon or trout had been liberated. This was apparent by clause 2 of sub section 2 in the “ Trout and Salmon Protection Act of 1867.” Mr Deacon still submitted that, admitting Mr Mellsh’s view to be tie correct one, still there was no evidence brought forward that by proclamation of the Governor in Council, the trout was declared a protected fish. No matter how much tho Bench might wish to protect the trout, they had not the power to do so ia the face of his objection. ! Mr Farr asked for an adjournment of the case, as he could prove that the trout were protected. Mr Deacon further submitted there was no evidence offered that trout had been liberated in the river. Mr Mellish said ho could not see his way to an adjournment because the complainants had not got up their esse. Mr Deacon said his objection only applied to the present case, there was no doubt evidence could be given in subsequent cases of the liberation of the trout and tneir protection, but none had been brought forward in the present instance. Mr Mellish said he was against Mr Deacon on all the points ho had raised, and there was no doubt that the defendant ought to have had a license, which it was proved ho had not Daatly,| Mr Deioon submitted that the bylaws were ultra vires, as they ought to have bom framed for the whole of_ the colony. Mr Mellish was of opinion that the intention in framing the bv-law was to make them applicable to Ihe different circumstances of different parts of the col my with regard to the va iation of the seasons and other conditions. He said that Mr Deacon had the power of appealing. While admitting that no evidence had been given that trout had been protected or turned into the Avon, the defendant was si ill guilty of a breach of the law. The defendant would be fined 20s, the amount of the license. LYTTELTON. Monday, FaBauAUT 16. [Before J. Beswick, Eq, BM, and T. W. Potts, Esq., J P. Lunacy.—Peter Pulerto, an A.B. on board the schooner Seagull, was, upon the testimony of Dr. J. T. Bouse and Dr. Barrow, sent to Sunnyside. Laeoeny.—Florence Ebitt was charged with the larceny of a shawl from the Ocean Yiew Hotel, Governor’s Bay. Mr H. N. Nalder defended the accused. Dennis Black, constable, said the accused was given in charge last Friday night at half-past eleven, at the police station, Governor’s Bay, by F. Baahford, the licensee of the Ocean View Hotel, Governor’s Bay. He charged her with stealing a shawl, and handed mo a telegram and a letter. When the charge was made she accused Mr Bashfurd with having planted the shawl while she was out. Frederick Bashford, the prosecutor, said the accused was a serv nt in his employ since December last Tbe article alleged to have been stolen belonged to a Mrs Littlecott, who had been staying at the hotel. She had missed the shawl after returning to Wellington, and had sent a letter to witness informing him of the loss. In consequence of this witness spoke to the accused, asking if she had seen it, and the latter denied all knowledge of it. Witness and his wife then searched the bedroom which was occupied by Mrs Littlecott, but did not find it. Several days after, and upon the day before the accused was to leave the hotel, witness searched her things. The girl before this had steadily persisted in her denial of having seen the shawl. When witness said he would search her bedroom, she said you may do so and my box also. Witness searched the room and found the shawl under the bedding between it and the bod slats. The girl immediately she saw it said—“ That has been put there.” In his cross-examination witness said ■the night before this discovery was made he had voluntarily told the girl she might go out for a walk, but not stay later than ten o’clock. The witness was examined as to his present insolvency, and in answer to counsel •said he had carted goods from his hotel just before he filed. They were brought back again. The girl and witness had had some words about reports she had circulated about this matter. There is one month’s wages due to her. Counsel for the girl addressed the Bench at some length with reference to the conduct of the prosecutor. The Bench adjourned to consider the evidence, and returned with a verdict of acquittal.