MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2336, 28 September 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

» OHEISTOHUBOE. Wednesday, Sbftbmbbb 28. i [Before J. N. Wood, 8.M., and B. Westcnra, J.P.) Dbunkbnnbss. —James Henry Benton was i fined 10s, or forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. ; Bridget Eerrick was fined ss, or twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. I Pbovoking a Bbbaoh of the Peacb.— Jessie Weston and Alice Greaves pleaded guilty to a charge of this nature. The police stated that prisoners went to a house where there lived a child belonging to a Mr Weston, from whom one of the prisoners had been divorced. They obtained access to the child, whom they snatched up and ran away with. The child was not the child of the prisoner Weston. The child was recovered by the police, uninjured, at 10 o’clock the same night. The Bench said as this was the case, prisoners would on this occasion be dismissed, but if they attempted to interfere with the child again they would bo severely dealt with. Prisoners discharged. Valulesb Cheques. Charles Bylands, charged with obtaining goods by means of valueless cheques, was further remanded till September 30th, as he was at present in custody at Ashburton. Applications fob Maintenance Oedebs. —Ellen Bowden charged her husband, Wm. Bowden, with having for the four weeks last past failed to provide her with means of subThe evidence produced related to the family squabbles of an elderly couple in easy circumstances, to whom, after two years' trial, a second marriage had not brought happiness. Mr Holmes appeared for applicant, Mr Thomas for the defence. The evidence was very lengthy, and it, with counsel’s applications which were many—occupied the Court the greater part of the morning. His Worship made an order for the payment of £4 per calendar month by the husband to the wife, he being required to find one surety in £5 for one year, and to pay solicitor’s fee £3 3s, expenses of two witnesses 17s fid, and coats of Court 15s. BINGULAB CASE. Esther Carr, a young woman of modest appearance, was charged with stealing £5, the property of Hans Hanstzen, a Dane. Schwartz was sworn as interpreter, but such evidence as was obtained was got out with great difficulty from prosecutor, who seemed to be rather stupid in his manner. He stated that on Tuesday be was working in a garden at Selwyn, belonging to a Mr Hiscooks. He had taken off his coat and laid it aside. In the pocket of the coat there were a £5 note, four £1 notes, and some silver. [Sergeant Mason here caused a £5 note to be handed to prosecutor.] Ho recognised the note produced as the one that had been in his coat pocket. A long conversation hero ensued between the interpreter and prosecutor, apparently in an endeavor to obtain from the latter how it was he knew the note. Finally he stated that he knew it by a spot on it, which he had noticed on it when it first came into his possession four weeks before. At this point, Mr Thomas, who was sitting near the witnessbox rose, and addressing the Bench said, seeing the way the evidence for the prosecution was being extracted, with his Worship’s permission he would undertake the defence of the girl in the dock. His Worship said he was much obliged to Mr Thomas for his kind offer, and thought bis assistance was required. Mr Thomas then said that he was prepared to state on oath that ha had seen the constable who had arretted the girl edge up to the interpreter, and had heard him whisper to that person, 11 Show him the spot, show him the spot.” He put it to the Bench whether that style of conduct was either a decorous or in any way proper means of conducting the examination of the prosecutor. His Worship, “Certainly not, certainly not.” Sergeant Mason, who evidently was not aware of what had been going on between the constable and the interpreter, said—“l do not see, your Worship, after i what has occurred, that I can go further with the case; I would therefore ask permission to withdraw the charge.” His Worship, to prisoner, “ The case has been withdrawn, you are discharged." The girl then left the dock and Court."