MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2231, 22 April 1881, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

OHEISTOHUBOH. Fbidat, Apbil 22. [Before J. Ollivier, J. E. Parker, and B. Westenra, Eeqs., J.P.'s.] Labcent.— William Henry Tucker wag brought up on remand from the 20th met., charged with gtoaling from tbe person of William O’Connor, a cab proprietor of Ashburton, the gum of 7g 6d. Mr Loughrey appeared for the prisoner. John Buchanan, a laborer, deposed that he was in a spring von on its way from the racecourse, on Tuesday last. Prisoner and Tucker, who was drunk, and a constable, were also in the van. Witness saw prisoner pull his hand out of Tucker’s pocket. The policeman saw the action and caught hold of prisoner’s hand, in which wore throe half crowns. Prisoner was not very drunk. Tucker was not helplessly drunk. Constable Hayes deposed to seeing prisoner and Tucker on the racecourse. In consequence of the movements of the former, witness followed them into the van, and caught prisoner in the act of taking money out of Tucker’s pocket. He then arrested prisoner, and handed him over temporarily to the care of another person. Prisoner ran away from the man, and witness had a chase of half a mile before ho recaptured him. The defence was that the parties were friends of long standing. Tucker stated to the Court that prisoner had been taking care of him, as he was very drunk. If ho did take the money out of his pockets, he would have thought it only a friendly action. He had £lO or £ll in his pockets that day, and he would have trusted prisoner with that amount. The Bench said that notwithstanding what Tucker now said, they were of opinion that the man did take the money without authorisation. He was caught in the act, and he was evidently aware of what ho was about, as he endeavored at once to escape when detected. He was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor. Obuhlit to Animats. —Algernon Elliot was charged, on information, with having cruelly beaten a horse with a whip. Mr Stringer appeared for defendant. James Davidson, a clerk, deposed to seeing defen dant, on the evening of the 11th instant, cruelly ill-treat a horse, which he wag driving in a spring cart; it wag in Oxford terrace Defendant appeared to be in a great passion • he was first standing up in the cart hauling

at the reins and unmercifully beating tho horse with a whip. Prisoner then got ont and lushed the animal for some time. Cross” examined—The horse did not appear to have “ stuck up.” Witness remonstrated with da* fendant, and sent for a constable. When the horse got a chance he ran away and stuck his head in tho fence. John McDonald, a carpenter, staled that be saw defendant * hammering’ the horse with a whip, as described by Davidson, until it was broken. This continued for about a quarter of an hour. The horse was quiet and free; defendant was hardly able to stand. Witness could not say whether that was tho result of drink or not; the punishment seemed to be more wanton cruelly. Witness also remonstrated with defendant, who gave him “ impudence.” Defendant, being sworn, stated that the horse had jibbed, and put the van into the gutter I’ppoaito a poddock which was his grazing ground. The horse did not receive too severe a thrashing under tho circumstances. One of the men who remonstrated with him told him if he struck the horse again, he (tho man) would strike defendant. Cross-ex-amined—-When a constable arrived the horse was in his stable. Defendant did not offer to show tho horse to the constable. Mr Kiddoy, of the Star and Q-arter Hotel, stated that immediately after the occurrence ho saw defendant, who was sober and cool. Mr Davidson was excited. Witness examined the horse, which gave no sign of being ill used There were no marks on its head. The horse was accustomed to stick up. Constable Byan, called for tho defence, deposed to examining (he horse ; he did net find any cuts on the horse’s head. Mr Stringer submitted that tho prosecution had failed to make out their case, and that by the evidence it had been shown the horso had only been subjected to reasonable and proper discipline. Tne Bench called tho attention of defendant, and they wished all persons who were in the habit of behaving cruelly to animals to take notice, that under the Act of last year there was power given to inflict a fine of £2O, or imprisonment for six months. Tho present case would not bo very severely dealt with, though tho evidence clearly showed that considerable cruelly had been used. Defendant would be fined 40s. Misoblianeous. Fred. Dunham snd Arthur Hammil, for driving horses and carta on tho South Town belt footpath, were fined 10s each. John Brown, for burning hedge clippings within the borough of Sydenham, was fined 5a and 2a costs. A charge against Jos ph James Smith for using abusive language t) Arthur {Lily, crossiug keeper at the Colombo road railway crossing, while in the execution of his duty, was dismissed, as the Bench thought complainant had unwarrantably provoked him, A large batch of owners of unregistered dogs, chiefly from Sydenham, wore fined for each of their dogs so found 10s. Joseph Whitford and James Reynolds, scavengers, for conveying night soil along a thoroughfare before 11 p.m., were fined each 10s. William Merrit, a licensed carrier, was-

charged with feeding his horse in the street otherwise than by means of a nose-bag, contrary to a by-law of the Corporation. Being the first case of the kind brought before the Court, it was dismissed. John Adcock, for not keeping the lamps of his cab alight,, was fined 10s. Wm. Pattinson was fined 10s, Hannah Mole ss, and Arthur Kerrison ss, for allowing |horses to wander. Alfred Wright, for leaving a horse and cart unattended, was fined 10s. Catherine Saxton, for allowing five head of cattle to feed on roadside, was fined ss, Charles Post and Leonard Post, boys whose heads were a little higher than the lawyer’s table in the centre of the Court, were charp-r with throwing stones at a man named Cats Schmidt, and Carl Schmidt was charged with knocking down Charles Post, all on April 6tb. The parties are newspaper runners, frequenting the railway station, and the trouble between them arose through trade rivalry. Two witnesses proved that the boys were of very bad behaviour generally, and especially towards Schmidt, whom they were trying to “ run off” the beat. The Bench dismissed the case against Schmidt. The boys were fined 10s each, with expenses of one witness ss, and threatened with severer punishment if they were ever brought up again.