MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2192, 5 March 1881, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Saturday, March 5. [Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.I Drunkenness,—For first offences two men wore fined Sa each. Cruelty to Animals. —Geo, Lindeman was charged under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1880, with having grossly ill-treated a dog, the property of George Western, butcher, Addington, Prosecutor deposed to being in the bar of the White Swan Hotel on Friday afternoon. His dog, a black greyhound, wag with him. Prisoner, who was in the room with another man, who appeared to be his mate, deliberately stabbed the dog in the shoulder as it passed him. There had been no reason for the action of the prisoner, as it had been perfectly inoffensive. George Squire stated that, being in the passage of the betel, he saw through a slide door the dog jump howling away from the prisoner, who had a knife in his hand cutting up tobacco. The dog immediately after was seen to be bleeding, There was besides prosecutor another man in the bar, but be was some distance from the dog when it began to howl. David Girdler, who was near last witness at the time, deposed he saw prisoner reach over and stick a knife into the dog under the circumstances previously stated. Prisoner then ran away. He was followed, brought back, and apologised for stubbing the dog. He was afterwards given into custody of the police. Sergeant Pratt, who took charge of the prisoner, stated that the latter was not drunk, though slightly under the influence of liquor. Prisoner, when arrested, offered to give £1 in compensation for what he had dene. Prisoner made a statement to the effect that he had lurched over, being drunk, and the knife accidentally ran into the dog. The magistrate said it appeared to be a piece of wanton cruelty, done without motive. The evidence and prisoner’s own actions made that quite clear. It did not seem probable that prisoner intended to do more than prick the dog : if ho thought otherwise, the fine he was about to inflict would have been much heavier. The police having given prisoner a good character, he was fined 27s 6d, costs, and expenses of two witnesses 10s. Vagrant*. —Mary Ryan and Mary Bennet, two girls, aged about sixteen or seventeen years, were brought up charged with having no lawful or visible means of support. A policeman deposed that, on the representation of one Mrs Lynch, the keeper of a brothel in Oxford terrace east, he went to her house this morning about four o’clock. On nearing the place, he heard a great row from shouting, sing ■ ing, &e,, and found, inside the house, the two prisoners and four young men, some of whom be said were then in the gallery of the Court. They were behaving in a most disorderly manner. The male larrikins cleared out when requested, but prisoners refused to go and were arrested. When asked what he knew of the prisoners, witness said they were part of a gang of seven or eight young prostitutes of ages ranging from fifteen to seventeen, who infested the streets, particularly in the vicinity of the theatre. They were a nuisance and an eyesore in the town, and a constant source of complaint from people who were annoyed by them. Sergt. Morice produced the record of their operations as recorded in the books of the Court. Both had been several times convicted for using obscene language and disorderly conduct, Ryan being the worst. They were sentenced to one month’s imprisonment each, with hard labor.

Ix.lboai.ly Pawning. —D. J, Phillip* was brought up for a violation of the Pawnbroker#’ Act, 1868, sec'ion 34, for pawning, without the consent of the owner, a gold ohain valued at £5, the property of Mary Robert*. On the application of the police he wa# remanded till March Btb. LYTTELTON. Sattjbday, Mabch 5. [Before W. Donald, Esq,, B.M.J Dbunk, —James Hogg, for being drunk and disorderly, was fined 10s. Doo Killing. —William Cook, Oolin Cook, and A. F. Norwood were charged with unlawfully killing a number of doge. Mr J. Joyce appeared for the accused. James H. Parker, draper, deposed that he had two spaniels on the Ist instant. On the 2nd, in the morning, he found them lying, opposite to Messrs Oook Bros, shop, dead. They were worth £5 each. He had the dogs opened and their stomachs analysed. Anthony Lee, in defendant’s employ, said he heard defendants say the dogs wanted poisoning, and Messrs Oook sent himself and Norwood for strychnine to the druggists. On Monday night he saw defendants put the poison on some liver and place it on the shop floor. Next morning a oat wa# found dead. On the following night the poisoned liver was laid in the back yard, close to the salt tub, the yard being accessible from the streets by a right of way. He had heard Mr Oook say that Mr Webb’s dog wanted "a pill” for barking. At the request of Mr Parker, he skinned his dogs and found poisoned liver, or something closely resembling it, in their stomachs. The police requested the charge to be withdrawn against the defendant Norwood, he being simply a servant in the other defendant’s employ. This was granted, and the man placed in the box as a witness. He generally corroborated the previous witnes’s evidence, but testified that the poison was laid for rats, which, according to the witness, infested the place. Under orders from Messrs Oook, their own dog was shut up at night when the poison was laid. Constable Lawlor said he called in the defendants and asked them whether they had laid poison, and they denied that they had. A. W. Persons, chemist, testified to having sold strychnine to the defendants for the purpose, as they alleged, for “ killing rats.” He had sold strychnine to three persons besides on the 3rd and the 11th of February and on March 2nd. The poison sold on the latter date was for someone living in London street (the street in which the defendants lived), but the witness declined to give the name of the purchaser. B. Bulkely, a chemist, said that defendants had purchased strychnine from him for “ killing rate.” He had examined four dogs’ stomachs, all inflamed, and he had found in soma microscopic evidence of strychnine. Counsel for the defendants contended that there was no evidence of malicious intent on the part of the defendants. In the course of his address he remarked that the defendants had thrown the poisoned liver into the donkey engine the morning {succeeding the night on which Jit was laid. The Bench humorously remarked that it might have been into the sausage machine. Counsel called evidence to show that the poison was laid “ for rats,” and the Bench, upon hearing this, said that while there was no doubt as to the cause of the death of the dogs, there was a doubt as to the malicious intent, and the defendants would be discharged. He cautioned them, however, to be more careful in laying poison about their premises. The police withdrew the two other charges against the defendants.