MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2340, 3 October 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHBIBTOHUBOH. Monday, October 3. [Before Messrs J. Ollivier, J. E. Parker, and B. Westerns, J.P.’s.] Drunkenness.—Jas. Meldrum was charged with being drunk on Saturday afternoon in High street, and with assaulting Constable Henry, who arrested him ; also with assaulting an old man named James Frame. Both assaults were proved to have been quite unprovoked. Prisoner pleaded being too drunk to have any control over his actions. Prisoner was convicted, without fine, for being drunk, and fined 20s each for the assaults ; or, in default, ninety-six hours’ imprisonment.— Elizabeth Bennet, against whom there was a charge of drunkenness pending, did not appear. The police stated that, being arrested on Saturday night, she was liberated on bail, and turned up so drunk to answer her bail that the police were compelled to re-arrest her. Her case was remanded till the following day. Illegally on Premises.—William Storey and John O’Leary were charged with having been found in an outhouse at the Manse, Tuam street, the residence of the Bev. Ohas. Fraser. Prisoners, who were found after midnight asleep in the place named, pleaded quilty. Storey said he was drunk, and stumbling into the shed fell asleep. Constable O’Connor stated that he watched the prisoners on the night in question, and after they had remained in the shod for some time ho arrested them. He knew Storey us a habitual loafer; O’Leary was not so well known. His Worship asked the witness whether, instead of waiting for prisoners to commit an offence, it would not have been better to have prevented it by warning them off ? He thought that would have been the best course to pursue. Prisoners were sentenced each to seven day’s imprisonment with hard labor. Wilful Destruction of Property.— Joseph Sparks was brought up charged with having, on the afternoon of Saturday last, broken windows and a number of bottles, decanters, &0., containing liquors, the property of Thomas Mullins, of the Junction Hotel, Lincoln road. On the application of the police he was remanded till October 4th. Bail was allowed, himself in £SO, and two sureties in £25 each. Persecuting Chinamen.—William Irvine and Henry Dunn, two boys about twelve and ten years, were charged with, and pleaded guilty to, throwing stones at Chinamen in a market garden on the North Town belt. Mr Thomas, who appeared for complainants, stated that boys were in the constant habit of annoying his clients by pelting them with stones. On this occasion the two defendants were caught in the act. Constable Gill deposed to having watched the boys when committing the offence for some time. Mr Thomas said ho did not wish to have more punishment indicted than would act as a deterrent in future. Defendants were severely reprimanded, and fined 20s each, with costs. Exposing Goods for Sale.—ln the case brought against Sydney Williams, draper, of Colombo street, for hanging goods beneath the r;of of the verandah in front of hia shop, and which case had been heard on September 16th, the Bench now gave judgment. They were of opinion that by exposing goods for sale under his verandah, although the said goods were hung up out of reach above the footpath, defendant had committed a broach of the Canterbury Police Ordinance; also, that as section 16 of that Act provides that any tradesman refusing to remove, at the request of a constable, the goods he had so exposed was liable to a penalty for every ouch refusal, defendant had left himself open to a severe penalty, but the Bench did not wish to be severe on this occasion, and, no doubt, in future, shopkeepers would so regulate their business as to avoid breaking the law. Defendant was fined 5a and costs. Assaults. —D. Burns v B. Day and Day v Burns were cross actions on summonses for assaults which took place in a row at Sumner on July 25th last. Mr Salter appeared for Burns, Mr J. 8. Williams for Day. After a lengthy hearing, the Bench said that in the first case there was not a particle of evidence to show that any assault had been committed by Day, and that Burns had been altogether in the wrong. That case would be dismissed with costs of Court against Burns, together with expenses of two witnesses, 10s, and solicitor’s fee £1 Is. The seoond case, Day v Burns, would also be dismissed with costs of Court against Burns. The latter, in going out of Court, muttered something which Mr Williams said was a threat; he was called

I back and severely reprimaded by the Bench, I with a caution as to hi® future behaviour.— < Richard Montague Buck was charged with having assaulted and beaten Robert Spenser Nottingham at Aikman’s road on September 27bh. The case for the prosecution was that plaintiff, a young man of seventeen, went with his younger sister to the house of defendant at eleven o’clock at night to bring home an elder sister who was there. Defendant opened the door, and, in answer to enquiries, said that the elder sister was not to be seen by them. Defendant then rushed at plaintiff, and beat him savagely, plaintiff having given no provocation whatever. Plaintiff and Miss Frances Nottingham deposed to the above statement. An elder brother proved that plaintiff and his sister arrived at home in a very agitated state. The story of the defendant was that on the day in question an elder sister of defendant had for some reason gone to his father’s house. Plaintiff and his younger sister went there, as they stated, to persuade the elder sister to return home, which she refused to do, and defendant told them so. Plaintiff then became impertinent, and defendant ordered him off the premises. Plaintiff would not go, when defendant took him by the collar, and pushed him towards the gate. A scuffle ensued, in which plaintiff, who had in his hand a walking stick, endeavored to use it on defendant, who boxed his ears, and finally took him across his knees and “ spanked ” him. The sister meanwhile screamed murder. Defendant swore he had not used any great violence while ejecting plaintiff. Defendant’s brother and father gave evidence thst went partially to corroborate hie statement. They Bench said they had no doubt r most unjustifiable assault bad been committed. Defendant was fined 20s, with costs of Court, and solicitor’s fee, £1 Is. MlsOßiiiiNßOira.—For allowing horses to wander, Alfred Mole and William Atkinson were fined 20s each, and J. Q. Seaton, John Farrow and George Dorney, for similar offences, were fined 10s each with costs. James Bennets, for driving a horse and cart over a footpath, was fined 10s with costs.— Beddington v Henley. Defendant, for using abusive and threatening language to plaintiff, was fined 20s, costs of Court 225, and solicitor’s fee 21s.—Henley v Beddington. An application for sureties of the peace from defendant was dismissed.—Mrs Sheehan, who had laid an information against her husband for failing to pay for her senarate maintenance, was recommended to apply for a warrant to issue against him.