RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LYTTELTON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XI, Issue 668, 2 April 1859, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LYTTELTON.

. % f . : ±&".;.. •■- .1859. •,-. ; ; [Before W. EkM^tD, and R. f jLatteb, -Esquires.] Christina Swansori-was fined 2Gb., or in default .to be locked up for 48 hoiifs,; for drunkenness. ; John. /Shepherd was charged - with" neglecting to ■keep the chimney of his houseip^ojperly swept, in cpnsequenceof whicha fine'wdsiricuvred. The charge i-watf dismissed on the ground of defendant having b^ lately comeinto dccupatiori. ; * Edward Nurse confessed <to the bharge of having three horses at-large la <the town. In' consideration of the scarcity of water upon the hills which brought the horsesldow.n "into, the town in search of that necessary, he;was, fined only. ss; -" :" : Catharine Healey was convicted ; of having two pigs and a sheep at large in the .town and fined ss. William Heaphy was charged, with having, after due notice, neglected to abate a certain nuisance existing on his. premise's, detrimental to the health ;.©f the'neighborhood.: Defendant,'who. endeavored to show that he had removed the nuisance, was <H»nvicted and fined;'ss. only, the full penalty being £10; itr having been,;shown that [some steps had been taken to abate the nuisance iv : question. ;■■•••..:" Mitßb»r «!^! POFLTBE. .'. {■; This'was ;arirr;aofcion for .the recovery of £11 13s. 3d. due for the rent of'a house, and for goods sold and delivered. Judgment, for that sum and co»fcs, the debt being admitted. „ 1: Other cases wer«; tlisposed:of out of Court. . . i ; . ..••;.-, Tuesday, 3%ech .29...... ,j ■ \ /■. Willt»m Cliurchill was charged by Sab-Inspector • Sealer, at the instance andJ by the:authority of Ctftain Thornton, with desertion • from; the ship, v The '• accused, whose, term of. imprisonment; upon a previous conviction, of .neglect of duty had: only . lately expired, admitted the charge and. was sen- . tenced to; 12 weeks' imprisonment with hard labor. . David Bradshaw. andiWiJliam Griggs were each convicted, upon confession^ of ■ drunkenness arid incapability of taking care of themselves arid .were fined K)s. each.1 ' ;,';;. -■; .•"- ■■' ,r'^ :■■:'" \ THTJESbAT^ MXRCH 30. ■'■■■> . BEOACHINO -William Manning, -Frederick -Foster, Patrick Welch, John Williamß, Robert Jblinson, and Wm. -[;Btflt; Were brought !4ip on> the charge of Captaia - Jtathews ol: the ship Mystery 1 foryhairihg jstoleri Heer : and.other jgoods part of the cargo of the,said -gtip on the ,15th February last. .Foster w^s a passengeV by the ship, the others were, part of the Yheevidence of Peter de Morchy, John Bowlesj Mary . Ann; vStokefc;A «n.d? • Elizabeth Shaw went directly to prwjiß(itlt*tlF.oster had taken beer with him intfi* th«-forecastle, and.'"had treated some of the women -with beer andginj which he eaid he got down the holdr ' This occurred several times; ;:Foßter.^cautioning; those' to wh6m;he;gave it to say :nothing.iabput;it,*under threat. The proceedings were adjourned'-till nefct day. Manning and Welch .„ ware ; di«cljarg^d; and-the. rest of the accused were .- remanded. .-; r*. -.- ;. : . '. .., ■ ; . ■ On Friday the examination was continued, by - the^deposition of Capt. Matthews, who produced bottles,found in Foster's berth, and others with the - game vlabel found in the forecastle; also a blue shirt found in Foster's berth, saturated with beer. This ahirtrbelpnged to Johnston.. }A letter from Foster was als,o put in acknowledging certain bottles of beer were • found in ; a carpetbag, belonging to him, . .- / '■■'-.''/ ■■'■• •-'■'•*■ ''-"■ -\ '■■■■■

The cliief officer of the Mystery deposed to hay* ing fqund the bottles arid the "shirt. .No beer of; the same label Was sold on board or formed part of the ships stores* Three casks in the hold were found broached. , A staple of the. fore scuttie hatch had been forced in and the bar removed, and the casks, mentioned with a case.of gin were found emptied. He had had suspicions'before and had on search found cargo broached jn the hold. At that time the fore hatch 'was being opened daily to get up coals and water, without Doing watched until suspicion arose, and some of the crew and passengers; used to go below to help. A constable of the ship. deposed to finding the bottles and shirt in Foster's berth, 'and - handing; them over to the Captain. : ! ; ; ' ; William Bolt, one of the accused, denied having been below on the night alluded to. He turned in late and saw no one. ' : ] , Kobert Johnson, an other accused, denied that the shirt produced was his. He was in bed also on the night in question.. >: • Frederick/Foster, in his statement, alleged that he knew; the search was going to be made before^ hand, and might easily have removed the ale bottles if he had known they were in his berth, which ho ,had,not!;, somebody must have put "them in his bagand in his berth' without his knowledge/ He. had always been able to get beer, (mnie^aM .spirits .honestly,; he denied havittg used .threats' <>&»the female witnesses or talked to anyone about going to the hold. Foster, Williams, Johnson, and Bolt were committed for trial at the next assizes. Christchurch, . i?BibAy, March 25. •-' [Before Joseph Brittan. and John Bealey, Esqrs.] _. .;,••..,'■; "■;. CHARGE: OF; LABCENY.'.;..:. -■•/.■ : ■ Thomas Hewitt, of Papanui, was charged byJohn , Saby and William Fleet, sawyers, witL having stolen a pit saw from the pit in their occupation in Worsley.'s bushi J " The substance of the case was that complainants: about two months ago left their saw pit to do some ■ work on the Lincoln road; they also left the saw in question at the pit, and other property apper- ■ taining to their trade. On returning to the pit on ; Monday last, the 21st inst., they, missed the, saw they had left, arid upon making enquiries they obtained information from Thomas M'Kenzie, of Cashmere, that the accused (Hewitt) had been seen by him about a month ago going towards the bush/, and returning the same day with a saw in his. hand; arid upon this iritelligence they had laid the.present charge. ... f \ !l .The saw was here produced, and complainants: identified'it as the one they had been working, with, and.had left behind them at the pit. They had purchased this saw from James M'Kerizie, about ,four or. five months ago, who was also working in the same bush. '' • "',.*. ' • Thomas M'Kerizie proved having seen Hewitt pass, with the saw in his hand, about a month ago, on/the way back from Worsley's bush." "','•'' ; ■James M'Kenzie was next called. • ; This witness appearing in a state of intoxication,' the Bench .declined.to take, his evidence, and ordered hiiri to be taken into custody for drunkenness.' "■'■'•■'- ' ' Henry Francis Worsley was next called. This witness deposed to;having accompanied Hewitt to the bush about six'weeks ago, and beirigpfesent with him when he took the saw ; from the pit. . Hewitt at the time observed to witriessthat he had had an? offer from' Saby for the saw, and had refused to sell it; and' that if M'Kenzie had sold it he had done so wrongfully, or words to ithateffect. Witness considered Hewitt tobe a man of 'good character as far as he knew anything about him. ; The Bench considered it unnecessary to; proceed; farther with the case,: as it was clear to,them that; Hewitt had done no more; than remove /what Was actually his own property. ;That if Saby ; and: Fleet; had bought the saw.from a person;who had/no, right; to sell they had sufferedinjury,from-that person;and had. their, remedy at law against him; Thelfactj that Hewitt went in broad daylight to the saw pit,; and took away the saw in, the presence of a respec-; table witness whose evidence as to the circumstances: of the alleged act of larceny they had now before them,;his making no; attempt whatever at conceal-; . ment,.his.whole conduct throughout the business: all these circumstances combined: went -to show ; that Hewitt did no more than .rerhove what he! could justly claim. They should therefore dismiss the charge. •; , ; SATURDAY, MABCH 26. [Before Joseph Brittan and John Bealey, Esqrs.] James McKenzie was brought up for drunkenness the previous day at the Resident Magistrate's Court. '';■' :- ■■■ i ; '■' ■■■ -- : > ' ' :"■ .-■■■■ ■''*, ;' The Court observed that there was no necessity' .to prove: the charge as the offence had ;been' committed in their presence, and that prisoner had been guilty of a very serious, offence in presenting him-; self in a state of intoxication; to. give evidence to; the Court. The/Court should fine, him thiß. time; for drunkenness in the sum of 205., and in default,; order him to be locked up for 48 hours. Prisoner, was unable to pay and in consequence was removed in custody. Tuesday, March 29. William Stewart was fined ss. for drunkenness. Wednesday, Maech 30. Frank Slee appeared to answer a charge of having a horse at large in the town on Sunday last. Defendant stated that his horse had only left his yard about 10 minutes before he sent to look after it, and he immediately released it from the pound where it had been driven. The case was dismissed, and defendant cautioned. ; Alexander. Lamb, in the employ ,6£Mr, Tunmer, was charged with lighting a heap of rubbish in a garden in Tuam Street. Defendant "admitted the charge, and stated he: had acted under the orders of Mr. Tunmer, his employer, he was riot aware that he had infringed, the law. : Fined 10s. and cautioned, ■ ; . . . BBEACH OV SHEEP OEDIKANCE. T...K. ADAMS V. JAMES MELDEUM. T. K. Adams Inspector of Sheep for the Northern District of the province, sworn —I visited Mr. Meldrum's station at Teyiotdale on fche 12th of . March, inst., and found 1200 sheep.in the yard, one of which wasinfected with scab. Thedisease was inciH pient. Crossfexamined by defendanti-lonly found one sheep diseased - The general appearance of the flock was heaUhy.; I left the station next morning; I saw the 1,200 slwep dipped -. before I left. Defendant admitted the charge. ;A fee of £60 was placed on record against him, to be inflicted unless a clean certificate be produced.within the time allowed by law. - ; JOHNSTON V. WATSON. ; This was an action to recover £20, broughtby James Johnston, a.carpenter, residing injChristchurch, against Robert. Watson, tailor, of the same place. ' } ' '■■"■■■'■"■■ It appeared in- the evidence that ;this sum was a :balance of account for building a house and fitting the same as'by contract between the parties.; De-r fendant objept^dto the debt in one item, namely in an: amount of £19 ; 16s. charged . for shop fittings, etc., tind stated that plaintiff had agreed to fit up his shop, and to complete an order for fittings which he had;given, especially in one particular, namely,; to provide rings for a curtain, which had nqtheen done. " Plaintiff had agreed to furnish the shop'in a certain manner, for a cost from about £15 to £20. , This agreement was a verbal one, apart from, the specification, but defendant's wife was present at the tiine.;' ..The account he was disputing ought to have included the rings. Plaintift stated that he had never, made any

agreement whatever, that he 4id not deal,in, rings; lie might have said'hd would get rings/ but the charge he made at present was entirely for the time and labour employed. ' , i This case was adjourned till tho 6th April next, for the production of further evidenco, defendant consenting to pay all costs of adjournment... . ;