RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Lyttelton.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 644, 8 January 1859, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Lyttelton.

Monday, Jan. 3, 1859.

(Before John Hall, Esq., Resident Magistrate, and William; Donald, Esq., J.P.) SIMPSON V- " IRISH-TOM."1

This was an application on the part of Caroline Simpson to have the defendant (who is only known by the soubriquet o? " Ivh\i Tom") bound over to keep the peace. " Irish Tom" did not make his appearance. It appears from the evidence of the plaintiff that the defendant went to her house in London-street, between ,10 and 11 o'clock on the night of Thursday last, and" asked for his clothes which he had left with'1, witness to be washed. Plaintiff told him they were .not ready, but .he should have them in the morning. Upon which defendant said he. wouldhave them, and used abusive and threateninglanguage towards the witness, calling her vile 'names and threatening to strike her. Eventually, he went away, taking with him his clothing, but returned in about a quarter of an hour, bringing two other men' with him, after witness had gone to bed, and tried to open her bedroom window ; witness heard the defendant Ray (outside the window) that he would annoy her and keep her in constant fear. . , ■ This statement being corroborated by Elizabeth Marlowe, a warrant was ordered to be issued to bring defendant before the court the next day.

SIMPSON V. PATKIiaON. !! The plaintiff, the same as in the previous case and .also the principal witness, deposed that about 2 o'clock on Sunday morning last, she was alarmed by the kettle falling from the hob, and <by hearing a groan, which appeared to come from under the house. Sho jumped out.'of bed,; and called out' "Murder!" and "Police!" The police appeared,: obtained a light, and proceeded to the kitchen, where they found the legs: of a man hanging down the chimney, wliich the witness said she supposed to belong to a " gentleman from Kaiapoi." Witness further stated that early on the morning of Friday last, the prisoner annoyed her very much by knocking at the side of the house where he supposed she was sleeping, desiring to obtain admission. On the following night he came again and knocked at the window. She then threatened him with the police; but, being desirous.of finding out who the man was, she called him into the house, where there was another person at the sam<? time. She told the prisoner not to come to her house after dark. lie went away, but returned the same night and knocked at the window till he was tired. She did not see prisoner againuntil he was found in the chimney. She gave him no encouragement. The Corporal of Police deposed that as he was on duty in London street, he heard a woman cry out., •' murder" opposite Collier's, and that when he got to the place he found it was the plaintiff, who told him there was a man in her chimney, i Having obtained a light and, got into the house through the window, they found the prisoner jammed in the chimney by a piece of wood across, which took him' in. the fork and prevented from coming down further. One of the persons present sawed the piece,, of- wood through And let the man down. On being, asked what he came there for, he desired to be let go. But the views of the police being different from his own, he was taken into custody and locked up. [■■■.' • The; prisoner, after receiving the usual caution, and having deliberated for some, time, declined to say anything in reply. Convicted of having broken into ' a building for an unlawful purpose; sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, with hard labour. ' "" The same individual was then charged with stealing a piece of rope which was found by the police attached to the chimney, through which he had: made his unusual entry into Mrs. Simpson's house. Maria Cummins identified part of the rope as her property, being a portion of a" clothes-line which had been left fastened across the garden, and which had since been cut and part of it taken away. . Witness also said she had seen a ladder, which had been used to bar cattle out of her garden, standing against Mrs. Simpson's chimney. "<"■■'■ The prisoner, having been cautioned and having nothing to say in his defence, was convicted and sentenced to a second period of three months imprisonment, with hard labour. : REGINA V. DUNSFORD. The Sub-Inspector of Police gave evidence.that about eight o'clock in the morning of the 30th Dec. last, he saw smoke and flames issuing from the chimney of defendant's premises on Norwich Quay. On going into the room where the fire was; a large quantity of soot was burning in the grate. The defendant discharged a gun up the" chimney three or four times, bringing down each time a large quantity of burning, soot. The quantity was so great that he had to remove it to prevent the room taking fire. Defendant stated that the chimney had been cleaned as high up as a ship's scraper attached to a mop handle could reach, and that the fire was occasioned by the girl putting a large piece of the.head of a tar barrel on the stove. ' The Magistrate admonished the defendant, and pointed out to him the extreme danger to the town from neglect such as defendant had exhibited in not having Ms chimney properly swept. Convicted and fined £5. morrison v. nooTn and Thomson. This was a case of a similar nature to one brought before the Court a few weeks back by the same plaintiff, but against other defendants, who were also carriers. The action in this case was for the recovery of the value of a parcel of goods alleged to have been delivered to defendants for carriage over the hill, to Christchurch, but which goods did not reach their destination.' The plaintiff failed to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that the goods were delivered to the carriers in 1 question- though the Court was of opinion that there was good primd facie ground for the action. ; .Judgment was given for the defendants, with costs. Tuesday, Jan. 4. siirrsoN y; " Irish torn." , , Thomas Eogers, alias " Irish Tom," was brought up by warrant before the Court and bound over, himself in £20' and two sureties, in £10 each, to keep the peace towards Caroline Simpson. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, Christchurch. Monday, Jan. 3, 1859. (Before W. G. Brittan, Esq., J.P.) Frederick Mahnke was charged by the police with being drunk and incapable on Saturday afternoon last, in Colombo Street. Prisoner was fined 10s. and cautioned. Tuesday, Jan. 4. (Before John Hall, Esq., R.M.) . Alexander Reading and Charles Townsend were charged by the police with being found drunk and incapable on Monday night, 3rd instant. Prisoners were fined 10s. each and cautioned. Wednesday, Jan. 5. (Before John Hall, Esq., R.M.) Henry Rust was charged by the police with having two unregistered dogs. . Defendant was fined 205.; and as he stated his intention to keep only one dog, he was ordered to register the same. Thomas Cook and M. B. Hart appeared sever allyto answer a charge made by the police, of keeping open house after .the legal hours at night for closing. Both cases were dismissed, and defendants cautioned. WRIGHT V. AVEBB. The plaintiff, James Wright, summoned the defendant, Alexander Webb, for the sum of £7 17s. 3d., alleged to be a balance due on an account for barley sold by plaintiff to defendant. '*' James Wright sworn: I sold defendant about two months ago barley to the value of £30 Us. 3d. Payment was to be made in a month. I told defendant I would take a three months' bill, one that I could make use of. Defendant said he did not require it. There was- no written agreement. I asked,him about-five weeks after to settle with mo; he said he could'inot'do so, as the returns for thebarley had not come- from Wellington. He then offered me a. bill for £20, which I found was not negotiable. I also had timber from the defendant to the amount of £2 17s. I asked him for the amount due: he refused payment. Alexander Webb sworn: About'the time mentioned, plaintiff offered me some barley. ' A verbal agreement passed between us that payment should be made in three months. Defendant then wont on to state that in shipping the last few bags for Wellington, it was discovered, from the accidental bursting of a bap, that the sample of ba.'ley was very inferior and unsaleable. Defendant wrote to his correspondents in Wellington to dispose of it to the best advantage, and to remit the returns. Upon plaintiff coming to him and saying he wanted money, defendant gave him a bill for .£2O at 3 months date, and told-him that the balance should stand over until the returns came from Wellington. ■ As there was no-written agreement and no further evidence to prove the precise terms of the verbal agreement as to the time for payment, judgment was given for defendant with costs.