MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2689, 20 November 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, November 20. 1 ■[Before J. Ollivier, Esq., R.M., and R ' Westenra, Esq., J.P.] _ ; Drunkenness. —Mary Ann White, for "being drunk and using obscene language, 1 •was fined 15s. For first offences, three 1 men were fined 5s each. She Wanted Her Husband. —Louisa Brown, a colored woman, was charged with creating a disturbance in a licensed house. Constable Jones stated that on Sunday afternoon he was called to His Lordship’s Larder. He found accused in the kitchen holding tight round the neck • a colored man—the cook —whom she said was her husband. She would not go away without him, and was taken to the look-up. The accused said the man she had stuck to was her own “Lawfully husband.” She had married him in New York City. He had left her two weeks, and she went to see about his absence, also to get some money. She had made no noise, all she wanted was her husband. The magistrate said hers was a hard case, but she must take some other mode of recovering her-partner. For the present offence she would be cautioned and discharged. FroiiTiNa. —James Brett and Charles Chamberlain were charged with the above offence. Inspector Pender said that since the arrest the police had learnt that Brett had been attacked by Chamberlain, he therefore withdrew the charge ' against Brett, who then was called as a witness. He deposed that, as he and his sister were walking on Oxford terrace, the prisoner and two other young men came up and " walked right into them,” on which witness struck Chamberlain. A fight ensued, and they were arrested. Miss Brett gave corroborative evidence. The police stated that prisoner was one of a gang who had been convicted of similar offences some time back in High street. He was fined j£s, or, in default, one month’s imprisonment with hard labor. Remands. —J. Figioni, charged with assault, and H. Garrett, charged with housebreaking, both on remand, were further remanded till Monday, November 27th. Miscellaneous. Patrick Gillon, for neglecting to keep a light burning before his licensed house, the Garrick Hotel, was fined .£1. —C. C. Aikman, for having in use an untrue weighing machine, was fined 10s ; James Forrester, for a false spring balance, £1; Hugh Long, for an unstamped pint milk measure, 5s ; James Dann, for a false spring balance, £l, and for having five unstamped weights, 5s ; Henry Marsh, for having two light weights, ss; W. H. Mein, for having seven lio-ht weights, was fined I£. The weights, measures, balances and scales in. the above cases were forfeited.—Robert Tubman and W. W. Newnham were each fined 10s for driving horses on a footpath at Papanui.—The following fines were inflicted for allowing horses or cattle to •wander :—John Mason, 10s ; John Cuff, 10s ; A. Cowan, 10s ; W. Scott, 10s. — Walter Walls was charged with plying for Lire, carrying goods in an unlicensed express waggon. The evidence showed that the real offence consisted in carrying passengers in an express waggon on a race day. The waggon was found to be licensed The information was dismissed as being wrongly laid. —J. W. Crowes, a cabman, for demanding more than his lawful fare, •was fined ss.—Antonio Juris, in arrear £3 10s with payments for the maintenance of his children, now paid £1 10s, the balance to be paid in four weeks. —A case against C. Mardon, for using abusive and threatening language to W. Barnett, was dismissed. —A similar course was taken in the case of Mullins v Miller, in which Mr Corr appeared for plaintiff, Mr Gresson for defendant. The Bench said it was a neighbor’s paltry squabble, which should not have come into Court. Cases in which information had been laid by J. McGregor, poundkeeper at ’ Heathcote, were dismissed, as against W. Best, John Currie, S. Needham, and Thomas Gray, the Bench remarkingthat the prosecutor had apparently been ill-advised. A case, in which Annie Hills prayed for an order protectin'" - her earnings against her husband, J. D. Hills, and for the custody and maintenance of their 1 four children, on the "■round of his gross cruelty to her, was adjourned for a fortnight. Daniel Smith was ordered to pay 10s weekly towards the support of his wife Caroline and her child.