MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1872, 23 February 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHBISTCHUBOH. Monday, Fbbbuaby 23.

[Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., E.M., His Worship the Mayor, and Messrs J. E. Parker and John Anderson, J.P.'e.] Dbunk and Disobdbbit.—One habitual drunkard was fined 10s. Bbbach op the City By-laws.—William Bichard Parker was summoned for not having a light on a heap of sand left opposite the new Colonial Bank in Hereford street. Fined 10s.

Bbeaxing into a Shop.—Thomas Kail, a boy eight years of age, was charged with breaking into the shop of Arthur Wilson, in High street. Constable Leahy deponed that the accused was given into his charge the previous day for breaking into the shop of Mr Wilson. The lad said ho had been taken into the shop by another boy named Vincent, living in the Ferry road. The witness endeavoured to find out Yincent, but had failed to do so. Arthur Wilson stated his place had been broken into several times, and the previous morning (Sunday) he went down to see that all was safe, when he found the prisoner crouched down behind the counter. He left the premises secure the previous night. From the appearance of one of the back windows it was apparent the prisoner had got in that way. After some discussion with the Bench, it was resolved to charge the boy under the Larceny Act with the theft of 4d. The evidence of the prosecutor brought this charge home to him. The boy's mother being put into the witness box, said he was not a wellbehaved boy as far as attending school and general behaviour went, but she had never known him to steal anything. The boy was sentenced to twelve hours' imprisonment and ordered to be whipped. Obstbttcting the Boas. Thomas Bilsey, James Butcher and James Carter, fish hawkers, were charged with unlawfully obstructing the passage of persons passing along the road. Mr Joyce appeared on behalf of the defendants; Mr Garrick for the City Council. The case of Thomas Bilsey was taken first. Constable Macarthy stated that on Saturday, the 14th of February, the defendant occupied a portion of the A.l. corner of Caßhel street with his fish cart, and refused to move on when desired to do so. It led to an actual obstruction of the street. He would occasionally move on, but in a short time returned. The obstruction consisted in impeding the passage of people up and down the street. The City Surveyor, being sworn, said the locality in question was a public highway, and the fish barrows standing there would be an obstruction to the foot passengers. This was the case for the prosecution. Mr Joyce submitted that the case must be dismissed. The information was for obstructing Cashel street, and the evidence had reference to Colombo street. The objection was held to be good, and the information was at once dismissed by the Bench. The case of James Butcher was then taken. The evidence for the prosecution was of a similar nature to the previous case, with the exception that it was shown the obstruction was occasioned both in Cashel street and Colombo street. Mr Joyce submitted that the evidence in this case was also very imperfect, and asked for the dismissal of the case. The Bench overrulnd the objection, and Mr Joyce then submitted that the information waa itself bad, inasmuch as it had been laid under the Public Works Act, sec. 99, sub-section 9, which had nothing to do with municipal corporations. The information ought to have been laid under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1876. Mr G-ar-rick admitted Mr Joyce's technical objection, but submitted that the information was laid on broader grounds. An obstruction on a public highway had been caused, whereby the public had been inconvenienced and the police constable had properly exercised his functions in trying to remove it, as he would do with any other obstruction of a similar nature. He was quite content that Mr Joyce should be allowed the right of appeal, and asked that a fine of £5 might be inflicted, bo as to give him that privilege. The Bench held that the defendant was liable to a fine. In this case it would be 10s, or if Mr Joyce desired to appeal the Bench would make it £5. Mr Joyce Baid he should like the latter course adopted. The defendant was fined £5, Mr Joyce intimating his intention of appealing. The other case was postponed, pending the result of the appeal. The Bench said the Mayor had just suggested

that the Council were piepared to give tie ' hawkers the right of using a portion of the Market square at a nominal rent. His Worship pointed out that the defendants must not go on infringing the law in the interim, as if the oases were decided against them, they would render themselves liable to a £5 fine, as Mr Joyce had by his action established a precedent. The case of Carter was adjourned sine die. Illegally Bathing.— James Harrington, a youth, was with bathing within view of a public place. Constable Gafney deposed that he saw the defendant bathing in the sea at Sumner, on Sunday, the 15th instant. The spot he had ohosen was within the view of the passers by. The Bench took a lenient view of the case, and fined the defendant Is and costs. He was cautioned to be more careful For the future, to bathe in proper places, and within the specified legal hours.

Breach of Weights and Mbasttbbs Act.—Alfred Josling, A. J. Bull, Arthur Upjohn, Thomas Eowe, John Saywell, and Abraham Ashworth were severally charged with breaches of the Weights and Measures Act. The informations were laid under clause 45 of the Act, and were disposed of as follows :—Alfred Josling, imperfect scales and light weights, fined 20s for the imperfect scales, and Is for the light weights, the latter to be forfeited; A. J. Ball, two false spring balances, to the extent of to 2Jlbs deficiency respectively, fined 40s, and the for. feiture of the balances; Arthur Upjohn, a false spring balance, lib deficient in 141bs, and two light weights, fined 20s and costs in the first, and Is and costs in the second, weights and scales to be forfeited; Thomas Rowe, one pair false scales and six light weights, fined 20s and costs, and Is and costs, the scales to be forfeited; John Saywell, light weights, fined 20s and costs, weights to be forfeited ; Abraham Ashworth, light weights, fined 20s and costs, weights to be forfeited. A number of private summons cases were disposed of.