MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2473, 10 March 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, March 10.

[Before O. Whitefoord, Esq., E.M., J. B. Parker and E. Westenra, Bsqrs., J.P.’s] Dbunkennbss.—Florance Anthony was charged with lunacy from drink. Sergeant Mason said the accused had been behaving in a very eccentric manner while at liberty on the previous day, having given to passers-by in the street a large sum of morey. He was remanded for seven days to Addington Gaol to undergo medical treatment. Four men, for first offences, were fined 5s each. A. HOEEIBLK DBN. James Mitchell and Charles Burmeister, of Gloucester street, were charged with occupying a house frequented by reputed thieves and persons having no lawful visible means of support. The information was laid under the Vagrant Act, 1866. Mr Stringer appeared for the accused. Sergeant Wilson stated that accused kept, near the Theatre Eoyal, an oyster saloon, which was the resort of a great many bad characters. It was nightly the scene of disgraceful rows, and was a nuisance to the neighborhood. On March Ist there were at different times no less than fourteen prostitutes, two of whom wore arrested inside the house for fighting, and many of them had been convicted for drunkenness, fighting, &c. Similarly, the witness particularised other nights and named numbers of convicted thieves and other bad characters who had been there. Many complaints had been made about the house, and two police officers were detailed every night specially to protect people on their way to and from the theatre. The traffic at the place wont on always to a late hour. Sergeant Hughes gave corroborative evidence. He gave the names of several frequenters of the house who had been convicted of theft and vagrancy. The house, especially on Saturday nights, was infested with larrikins, who behaved in a most disorderly manner. Constable Hayes and Detective Neil gave similar evidence. Mr Stringer said that no offence, as contemplated by the Act, had been proved against the accused. He was prepared to admit that the house was a nuisance, and that disorderly scones took place around and about it. It was, however, nothing more than an eating-house. Thieves and prostitutes went there for refreshment. There had been nothing to show that they went there to ply their avocations—theft or prostitution. To secure a conviction under the Act it would be necessary to prsve this, and that not having been done, he submitted there was no case against the accused. The Bench said they did not hold that it was unlawful to supply any parson with refreshment, but it had bean proved that the same persons—persona of the most degraded and viscious character and occupation—had been seen to go in and

out of the place kept by the accused. The Bench did not think it could be pretended they required refreshment every time, and it was certain that rows wore constantly taking place inside and outside the house. If tho Act was not intended to put a stop to such disgraceful scenes they did not know its intention. However they had no doubt about it, and had no difficulty in so applying it. Burmeister, it appeared, had been before the Court on a similar charge, and had got off with a caution, of which ho had, apparently, taken no heed. He would now be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor. Mitchell, against whom the police had nothing to report, would be discharged with a caution, with an assurance that it he came up again similarly charged he would receive the full penalty entailed, viz,, three months’ imprisonment with hard labor. BABBIKINS ABUOr. R. Chamberlain, Charles Chamberlain, Edwd. Chamberlain, William Butterfield, Thomas Farr, Charles Bnshell, Mary Bennett, and a man known to the police c s Long George, the stutterer, were charged under the Vagrant Act with behaving in a manner calculated to create a breach of the peace. Three only of the accused appeared, Eichard and Edward Chamberlain and Mary Bennett. The police withdrew the charge against the female.

The rest, it appeared, could not be served “ith summonses. J. Rogers, a carpenter, deposed that about eleven o’clock on the night, February 23th, in High street, he saw a friend of his attacked by a gang of young men. One of the accused, B. Chamberlain, struck him, and witness interfered, on which the gang turned on him, beat him, and he with difficulty got clear. Ada Harrison deposed that on the same night and near the same place she was set on by six or seven young men, and, without provocation, was knocked down and trampled on. B. Fitzgerald, who had interfered in favor of a previous victim, and had been very badly beaten, gave evidence to that effect. Charles Wadey, who saw the fight, proved that the accused then in Court were the most active in the fray. The female was in their company. J. O. Fisher deposed to being attacked and seriously beaten by the gang. W. H. Clements, who had had his jaw broken, two of his teeth broken, his eyes blacked, who las since been under the doctor, and who now appeared with traces of the illnaage he had received, stated that while going along the street he had been attacked from behind and shamefully maltreated. Edward Scott gave similar evidence; two young men attacked him. He recognised one of the accused as having struck him. In the case of Clements, it appeared that a man, who was not yet apprehended, had been the aggressor. Accused called witnesses to prove an alibi, which, however, failed. Mr Whitefoord said it wag fortunate for the accused that circumstances compelled the police to prosecute in the form they had done. The section of the Act under which the information was laid prescribed penalties much too lenient for disgraceful outrages such as they were charged with. With as much rigour as the law allowed, however, they would be dealt with. They would be fined £lO each, or, in default, three months’ imprisonment with hard labor. They were also ordered to pay the expenses of seven witnesses and the expenses incurred by Miss Harrison and Mr Clements for medical attendance. The witnesses requested that the sums awarded for their expenses might be handed over to some charitable institution.