MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2502, 14 April 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHRISTCHUEOH. Friday, April 14,

[Before B. Western a and D, Caro, J.P.’s.] Drunkenness.—W. B. Stanley, charged with lunacy from drink, was committed to Addington gaol for seven days for medical treatment. For a first offence a man was fined ss, or iu default of payment, twentyfour hours' imprisonment with hard labour. Richard R*yaer, who had been under medical treatment at Addington gaol for lunacy from drink, was now brought up as cured, and woe ordered to pay 12j for his maintenance while in gaol, or in default to be imprisoned for twenty-four hours. Adulteration oe Liquor. Joseph Mareden, licensee of the Heathcote Hotel, was charged with the above offence. Mr Thomas appeared for defendant. The prosecution was conducted by the police under section 171 of the Licensing Act. Sergeant Mason stated that a sample of brandy had been purchased at the hotel kept by defendont on March 23rd, which, on analysis by Professor Bickerton, was found to contain nearly 25 per cent, of water. Constable Stevenson, inspector of weights and measures, who bought the brandy from the wife of defendant, deposed that he did not see any notice posted in the house that the spirits sold there were re duoed. He put the spirits in a bottle prov ded by himself ; he did not seal the bottle in the presence of the vendor, After buying it he stated what the sample was wanted for. Mr Thomas called the attention of the Bench to flection 181 of the Act, which, be said, required that the vessel containing the sample to be analysed should be sealed up in the presence of the vendor. Professor Bickerton said that the sample he analysed was 24'5 under proof, which did not mean that it contained 25 per cent, of water. Brandy of the highest class imported was sometimes 19 under proof. There was nothing deleterious in the sample. He considered the addition of water was adulteration unless notice of the addition was given to customers. The Bench, without requiring to hear evidence for the defence, held that inasmuch as the purchaser had not sealed up the sample in the presence of the vendor, the Act had not been complied with by the prosecution, and dismissed the case.

Bull at Laegb. —John Chamberlain, for allowing a bull to wander at large, was fined 10s and ordered to pay the expenses of one witness, 3s. Tethbeing a Horse on a Road,— Thomas Summerton, for this offence, was fined 10s.

Assaults. —Thomas Weir was charged with assaulting Reginald Bray and with threatening to do him further bodily harm. Plaintiff applied for defendant to be bound over to keep the peace. Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr Holmes for defendant. Complainanfc is totally deaf, and his evidence was taken by finger signs, Dr. Irving being sworn interpreter. The assault arose out of the trespassing of Weir's cow, whioh plaintiff endeavored to impound. Evidence was given for the prosecution, to the effect that plaintiff being on horseback was attacked by defendant, knocked off Lis horse, and afterwards further asseulted while dismounted. Plaintiff received several severe bruises in the fray. The defence was that plaintiff was of a generally irritable and quarrelsome character, and that, on this particular occasion he was tbe aggressor. Defendant had gone up to plaintiff to speak to him about the cow, when plaintiff struck him several times with the heavy handle of a whip ; what occurred after was done in the effort of defendant to take away the whip. As to an alleged assault afterwards at Talterssall’s, defendant hadendeavered to converse by writing with plaintiff, who wrenched himself away. There had been other disagreements between the parties, but defendant had not then struck plaintiff. The Bench, after a long hearing, thought an assault had been committed, and fined defendant 20s, and solicitor's fee £1 Is.

Another Case —Herman Hempton was charged with, on Maroh 23rd, assaulting James McGee. Mr Stringer appeared for plaintiff, Mr McOonnel for defendant. Jas. McGee stated that on the date named, while going up Madras street from the South Town belt, defendant met him and struck him several times, and hauled him into a house. Plaintiff was a tenant of defendant, who had put a bailiff into the house for rent. Cross examined he said Thera had been a previous scuffle, when witness might have pulled out a handful of defendant’s whiskers. Hempton got away from him then into a house, before which plaintiff walked about for tome time, calling on him to come out. The assault now complained of took place when defendant came out of the house. He followed defendant into the Grosvenor Hotel, and was ordered off the premises by the landlord, because he wanted to fight. Mrs Brown deposed that she saw defendant drag into her house the plaintiff, who was streaming with blood. There had been some previous scuffle, but she saw nothing of it. She heard plaintiff, after ho was released by defendant, call for an axe. There were some whiskers strewed about, which witness told her children to throw in the fire. Julia Barret deposed that she saw defendant walk up to plaintiff and strike him in the face, and knocked him down, after which ho ran away into a house. Defendant afterwards came out of the house and again knocked plaintiff down, and dragged him info Brown’s. Between the two fights plaintiff walked up and down before the house. Hu callad for an axo to kill defendant with —Bryan said he saw defendant bumping the head of plaintiff on the side path. George Winter said ho saw defendant throw plaintiff down and drag him into Brown’s. He did not oeo the beginning of the row. For the defence, defendant stated that as he v.as going to the railway he met plaintiff) who began to abuse him for putting in the bailiffs, and finally attacked him. Plaintiff took hold of defendant by the whiskers and dragged him to the ground. Defendant after a while released himself and got into a hours to get out of plaintiff’s way. While there, plaintiff walked up and down daring defendant to go oat. He did go out to get away, and was again attacked. In defending himself ho knocked plaintiff into Mrs Brown’s house. A policeman came, and defendant went over to the Grosvenor Hotel to wash himself. Plaintiff followed him, wanting to fight, and was turned out by the landlord. The proprietor of the house in which defendant took refuge deposed to seeing plaintiff attack defendant twice. The whole attack was by him ; defendant merely defended himself. D. Bryant, of the Grosvenor Hotel, corroborated the statement of defendant as to plaintiff following defendant, wanting to fight in the hotel. Witness kept them apart and ordered plaintiff out. The case against defendant was dismissed. Plaintiff was ordered to pay solicitor’s fee, £1 I s - Malicious Damage to Property. —A. case Hempton v M’Qee, for breaking a door and seme window panes in a house in Madras street was, in the absence of a material witness, adjourned till April 21st.