MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2495, 5 April 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, April 5. [Before R. Beethom, Esq , B M.] Drunkenness, —For a first offence a man was fined 5s and ordeic.'. to pay Is Cl cab hire. A. J. Carter, for ii gating in the street at Sydenham, was fined 10a. Charge op Stealing Ducks. —The prosecutor in a charge of this nature against William Sherwood applied to be allowed to withdraw it. Mr Spackmsn, who appeared for acouoed, stated that some ducks having strayed into and rooted about his garden, ho throw a stick and killed two, which ho threw over a fence into an adjoining paddock. Prosecutor laid an information, and accused was brought up on April 3rd, and remanded. After heaving this explanation, his Worship said there waa no objection to the withdrawal of tho charge. The matter then dropped. Damaging Property —Elizabeth Sutherland was charged with having damaged to the extent of 17s 6d the cab of John MoLelland. The parties are neighbors, Jiving at Bingsland. Prosecutor’s statement was that whilst ho was varnishing the cab, which stood close to a dividing fence, accused destroyed Lis work by shaking the dust out of some carpets on to it. She was on her own ground while doing this, but she managed so that the dust blew over the fence, and though he remonstrated with her, she would not desist. Accused stated that she did not know how prosecutor was engaged when she began to shako tho carpets, and she would have left off only she was annoyed at the manner prosecutor addressed her. After hearing other evidence, the Magistrate said ho could not hold that there had been malice on the part of accused, and dismissed the case.

Dog Stealing. —Richard Lane, a neglected looking young man, was charged with stealing from A. O. Ferguson a dog valued at £5. From his manner, when asked to plead, he seemed to be imbecile. In answer to enquiries by Mr Beotham, tho police said accused lived by himself at Halswell. He got his living by doing odd jobs for farmers in tho districts. Ho had parents, but had loft or had been turned out by them, probably because he was a burden to keep. He had certainly stolen tho dog, but he was of weak intellect, and did not seem clearly to understand what he had done. The Magistrate said, under these circumstances, he did not think the case should be carried any further. He ordered the dog to bo returned to its owner ; and, having received a few words of warning, the prisoner wee discharged.