MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 256, 29 June 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. THUBBDAY, JtTNB 29. [Before J Ollivtcr, R.M., R. Wostenra and C. B. Taylor, J.P.’s.] Dbunksknesb. — Robt* Lament and another man were fined each ss, or in default twentyfour hours’ imprisonment with hard labor. Bubuham School Childben. Hugh O’Neill was brought up on warrant charged with having neglected to obey an order of the Court for the payment of 15s per week for the maintenance of his children at Burnham. His arrears were nominally £5 ss, but the police informed the Court that his children had been at the institution for many years, and he not having paid anything at all, he really owed on their account £l3O. He was a man who, tut for drunken habits, might earn regularly tep laborer’s wages, He was sent to gaol for one month, to be kept at hard lator. An application was made by John O’Halloran for the admission to the school of his sons William (aged twelve) end John George (aged ten). He stated that their mother was dead, and their care hindered him from getting a living. The police gave applicant an excellent character. The boys wore ordered to be kept at Burnham till they teach the age of fifteen years, their father to pay 6j per week for their maintenance. Malicious Damaob to Feofebty.—H. B. Bayliss pleaded guilty to breaking four paces of glass, valued at £l 16 <, in the shop window belonging to Edward Hill, confectioner, of Lower High street. The offence had been committed deliberately, apparently by way of revenge at having lost a civil esse in which the parties were the principals. He was fined £l, and ordered to pay £1 16s for the damage, or, in default, to be imprisoned for fourteen days' with hard labor. Edward George was charged with maliciously injuring property valued at over £5 belonging to Peter Ratigan. Mr Grosson appeared for the prosecutor, Mr McCoanel for the defence. The offence consisted in the alleged forcible and unlawful entrance of and ejection of the personal effects of the prosecutor from premises situated at the corner of Hereford ard Barhadces streets, said to be the property of the wife of the accused, and of which the prosecutor was the tenant, the said tenant then being under notice to quit. A witness called by the prosecution deposed that it was he who, acting under the instructions of Mrs George, had entered tho premises. The ease was dismissed. Civil Cases.—Capon v Dawson, claim £1 10a. Mr Stringer appeared for tho plaintiff, Mr Loughrey for defendant. Some Htne before April last plaintiff had occasion to leave Christchurch, seeking work in the country. On his return ho found his wife and furniture gone from the house he had been living in. Subsequently ho found both in a house under the charge of defendant. His wife refused to come to him, and on that he applied to defendant for his furniture, which was refused, A few days later, however, he received notice from defendant warning him that unless he took away hi* things within a given time, they would bo put out into the street. Plaintiff went for them, and while in the act of taking them out of the house his wife stood by, end as the chairs, tables, clock, &0., psosed her, smashed them with a tomahawk. The damage so done was the amount claimed. Defendant did not actually assist in demolishing the goods, but looked on without interfering. Mrs Capon swore that she had paid for the things out of her earnings, and that as she and her husband owed defendant a large sum of money, she thought, when she changed her domestic arrangements, that he bad the best right to them, and she bad given them to him. The Magistrate made some comments on the “ brazen ” way in which this witness gave her evidence, but saying he did not think it was proved that the man instigated her, gave judgment for defendant with costs, judgment woe for plaintiff without dispute in Powlea v Johnson, £3 10s; Adams v Giles, £8 10s ; Shen non v Simpson, 9s 41 ; McAlpine v O’Oallaghan, £3 10a; and McPherson y Rogers, £2 14s 6d. West v Cowan was adjourned till July 6tb.