MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1943, 17 May 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, May 17. [Before J. E. Parker and J. D, Macpherson Bsqs., J.P.’s] Dbhnk and DisobdbeliY. —Three firgl offenders were charged with this offence and fined 5s each. Mary Welstead, an old offender, was charged with this offence Accused begged hard to be allowed to leave by the next train to join her husband at Dromore, he having sent her money for that purpose. The Bench warned her that if again brought up she would be severely dealt with. Case dismissed. Lunacy theohgh Drink. —Wm. Turner Roberts was brought before the Bench on this charge. The arresting constable deposed to the strange conduct of accused in the public streets yesterday, asking every one he met for a female he wanted to marry. He want up the City Hotel right-of-way, and seized a fish barrow, which he pushed up and down Colombo street, saying he intended to take tho girl to church in this conveyance. Re manded till May 25th to Lyttelton for medical treatment. Illegally on Pbeaiisbs and Assault. — Henry Scott was charged with being illegally on the premises of Robert Balloon, South Town Belt, on Saturday night last, and also with assaulting Robert Balloon. Robert Balloon said he did not wish to press the charge, as he know accused to be a respectable man and well conducted when away from drink. He forced his way into a bedroom through the window, and when put out struck witness. Ho thought him more stupid than drunk. Accused expressed contrition, admitting tho offence. After being severely admonished, he was fined 20s for the assault, the other charge being dismissed. Riding on a Public Footpath.— John Smith, for the above offence, was fined 10s and costs, 2s. Wandbeing Cattle. —John A. Redpath, for allowing a horse to wander at large, was fined 5s and costs, 2s; George Bull, for a similar offence, was fined 5s and costs, 7s ; Michael Lawlor, for allowing two cows to stray on the South Belt, was fined 5a and costs, 7s. Bebach op City Council By laws. — J. Martin and J. Burns, who were remanded for offences against the City Council by-laws, were fined 5s each. The inspector was in attendance, and deposed that both accused had since complied with the by-laws. Obtaining Goods undee False Pretences. —A first offender, a lad of fourteen, was charged with obtaining Is from WilPam Mouldey. The father deposed his son was well cared for by the mother. As ha was away at work all day he could not have the oversight of him he wished. He had bean in the habit of absenting himself from school, for which he had been corrected 5 he had repeatedly corrected him—so recently as this morning. The lad had expressed a wish to go to sea, and he had determined to send him accordingly. Inspector O’Donnell did not wish for a conviction. The Bench seyerely reprimanded the lad, and ordered the father to keep a stricter control over him. Tho father promised compliance, and also agreed to pay £1 13s 6i to Mr Mouldey, that being the extent of tho son’s delinquency. Case dismissed. Beeaches op Building By-Law. —W. D. Wood, James Shand, and John Beaumont, were charged with a breach of the Building By-Law. Mr Garrick for the City Council; Mr Harper for defendant. Mr Harper applied that this case be dismissed, as tho summons should have been served on the builder. Mr Garrick consenting the case was withdrawn. A second case against the same parties were called, for a breach of the Building By-Law, viz., tho erection of a building in Oxford Terrace in the inner area, of timber and corrugated iron, instead of either stone or brick. O. Walkden deposed he was surveyor to the City Council, and produced a copy of the by-law in question. Knew Wood, Shand and Co. had erected a building recently in the inner area. Tho building was of iron and wood, instead of either stone or brick. By Mr Harper—He gave them notice to remove it—the notice was a verbal one —he saw one of the partners. The answer was, “ You must enforce the by-law.” Didn’t know under which clause ho gave notice. Mr Harper referred witness to clause 41. Mr Garrick said it was not under that clause the proceedings were taken, as it was ultra vires; but under clause 9, he asked that a penalty of £5, as provided by clause 40, be inflicted. Mr Harper said he had no witness to call, and would make no defence. Fined £5. Mr Harper asked the Bench that a minute be made of the judgment. George Askey was charged with a breach of the Building Bylaw. Mr Joyce, for accused, asked for an adjournment of tho case till May 31st. Adjourned accordingly.