MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2454, 16 February 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHEISXCHUEOH. Thursday, February 16. fßefore E. Beetham, Esq , E.M.]

Drunkenness —Mary Ann Newton, for being found drunk, was fined ss. William Higgins, for a similar offence, was fined 20s, or in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment with hard labor. For a first offence a man was fined ss, or in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Fowl Stealing. —Edward J. Lightfoot and George Billyead, on remand from February 13th, were brought up and charged with stealing, on February 11th, two fowls valued at la, the property of James Haughey. Mr Holmes appeared for accused. Prosecutor stated that on the date named, at about 2 a.m., he, being in bed at the time, heard a noise, and, looking out of his window, saw two men reaching for some fowls which roosted in trees in the garden within sight. He went out, the men ran away, he followed and overtook them. In their flight the men each dropped a fowl. Witness was joined by his son, and they endeavoured to detain tho thieves, who, kowever, resisted, threatened him, and got away. The prisoners were tho men he chased. There was bright moonlight and he had no doubt about them. Thomas Haughey, a son of prosecutor, gave corroborative evidence. Detectives O’Connor ani Neil also gave evidence. Mr Holmes said that tho accused denied any intention of stealing the fowls. If they interfered with them at all it was in a mere drunken spree. Tho police stated that Billyead had been convicted of larceny once. Mr Bates, his employer, epoke to his good conduct for the lust two years. Lightfoot said he had been messenger in the Land Office for tho last four years and could produce evidence as to his good character. The Magistrate said he could not give any weight to the plea of drunkenness, and sentenced Billyead to one month’s and Lightfoot to seven days’ imprisonment with hard labour. Breach or Licensing Act —Edward Hiorns appeared to answer a charge of selling liquor after legal hours in his house, the Central Hotel, on January 30th. Mr Holmes appeared for defendant. Arthur McMahon, called, was proceeding to state things which occurred on January 29th, when Mr Holmes pointed out that they were charged with an offence on the 30th, which they were prepared to meet, but they were taken by surprise as to what was said to have occurred on the 29. h. The information was consequently amended, and adjourned case till February 20th.

Civil Oases.— Judgments went for plaintiffs, by default, in Bead v Ferguson, 14s 5d ; and Boborts r Buxton, £3 2i 6d. In Eadcliffe and Joughin v Allen, claim £6 5s lOd for goods (drapery) supplied.

judgment was given for plaintiff with costs Jin Btonobridga v Woodhouse, for goods supplied. judgment was for defendant without costs. Marks v Nisbot, claim £2 5a for wages. Judgment for plaintiff with oasts.

LY iTELTOH. Thursday, February 10. [Before J. T. Eons» and fl. All wright, Esqs.j Must Contribute —A man named S. Bbrthey was brought up on a judgment summons to contribute to the support of his child in the Burnham Industrial School. His case was adjourned for one month, the Bench cautioning the defendant to pay his contribution of 5s per week regularly. Unlawfully Assaulting and Beating. H. Prince, master of the barque B. Webster, an American vessel, was charged with assaulting and boating the second officer, Frank Sayleo, with a bottle on hoard the barque on Sunday night last. Mi* Haider appeared for the complainant and Mr Joyce for the defendant. Mr Joyce objected to the jurisdiction of the Court, the offence having taken place on board an American ship. Mr Haider replied, and the Court decided to go on with the case. The defendant testified that, with the permission of the chief officer, he went ashore on Sunday afternoon, and returned to the vessel at about 11 p m., when tho master, after telling him he had ro right to go ashore without his (the master’s permieeoj) struei/t him several times over the head with a bottle. fEhe witness exhibited a out cn the cheek which he said was caused by tho assault. Three witnesses testified that the complainant was sober when ho went down to tho vessel. In defence the master said that the oom■plainant came aboard apparently under the influence of driok, end gate him some insolence. Upon being told to goto his room he refused, and force was used by the master and mate to put him in, but no assault was -committed, and iso bottle was in the cabin. The mate den’ed giving any psrmi'sion to the complainant to go ashore excepting for a few minutes, whereas he remained aihoro several Fours, and came on board “in liquor,” The mate was also positive that no assault was committed by the master, nor was there any bottle in the cabin. The Bench did mot see its way clear to convict on the information, theovidence being very conclusive tihat no bottle assault took place. The case was therefore dismissed. Mr Joyce stated that the master was prepared to discharge the complainant if they could come to terms. Civil* Case.—George Maokay v J. Grubb, claim £8 3s. Judgment by default.