MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2367, 18 October 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

SECOND EDITION

TIMAEU—THIS DAY. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M., and E. G. Sterikcr, Esq., J.P.) SELLING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY. Thomas Connon, licensee of the Railway Hotel at Pleasant Point was charged with soiling liquors on Sunday Oct. 3. Mr White appeared for the accused. Reginald Orton deposed that he was until recently a livery stable keeper at the Point. He knew the accused and visited his house on Sundaj', Oet 3, in company with other men. They called for liquors which were served by a young man of the name of Hope. Connon was not in the house at the time.

By Sir White —Mentioned the fact of having' been supplied with liquors to Constable Stanley on the Monday morning, but did not lay the information till Oct 11. Waited for a week to see if “ things went square,” and the offence was repeated. No drinks were supplied on the following Sunday. Was present and watched. Witness’stables were close to the hotel. They were, let to him by John Akerman, at that time licensee of the hotel. Baird and Co, had taken possession under bill of sale and had instructed witness to pay his rent to Connon. A distress warrant was put in for rent on Oct. 11, and the information for Sunday trading was laid at the same time. Witness was not actuated by any ill-feeling to Connon when laying the information. Had certainly called people passing the hotel to look through the window and see “ the living curiosity,” when Connon was sitting in his room. Meant nothing by doing so. Mr White said at this stage, to save

further trouble his client would admit the offence. He would have pleaded guilty at once but he thought that Orton had been actuated in the affair by a bad animus. ihe Bench did not consider the charge a very serious one. The defendant would be fined 20s and costs. 33s 9d. alleged assault. A charge of assault preferred by W, Hope against R. Orton was heard. It appeared that the plaintiff had been put into the defendant’s stable under a distress warrant for rent, and alleged that he was struck by the defendant wiih a strap and buckle. . The defendant denied having intentionally assaulted the plaintiff, he was striking a horse and the blow might have possibly been received by the plaintiff. The case was dismissed. INFRINGEMENT OF THE BY-LAW'S. Thomas Langdon for leaving a horse and vehicle unattended in the public street was fined 10s and costs. Thomas Priest for leaving his horse tiep up to a post within the Borough was fined Is. application for re-hearing. Mr Reid appeared to ask for a rehearing of the case Lough v Bruce, in which the latter was fined £5 recently for breach of the Borough regulations. Mr Bruce was away now and Mr Reid had been instructed to ask that all proceedings might be stayed in his absence. The Bench replied that a re-hearing could not be granted. The fine had been paid and the stamp cancelled. There was an end of the matter. A batch of assault cases. Four assault cases arising out of the late case Heffernan v Hobbs, in which the defendant was sued for the value of a pair of trousers which it was alleged did not not fit W'cre called on for hearing and taken together. These were the Police v Heffernan, Fraser v Heffernan, Heffernan v Partridge, and Partridge v Heffernan. Mr Tosswill appeared for Heffernan, and Mr Hamersley for Partridge and Fraser. The short facts were that Hef* fernan on winning his case re the trousers called at Hobbs’ shop apparently with the object of boasting about having gained his case. Fraser who is employed by Hobbs, was present, and Partridge was also prese t. After a wdiile Heffernan left, but shortly returned and recommenced about tiie trousers. Fraser and Partridge now’ interfered, and asked Heffernan to leave. He thereupon struck Fraser and he fell against the curb outside and injured his kneecap. Partridge also alleged that he was struck by Heffernan. Dennis Heffernan stated that he simply went to Hobbs' shop to get his money for the trousers, having obtained judgment against Hobbs for the amount. Fraser, who was drunk, used insulting language, and Partridge interfered in what did not concern him. The Bench dismissed the whole of the cases. In the case Partridge v. Heffernan, however, the defendant was ordered to pay the costs amounting to 325, Heffernan also received a reprimand from the Bench. DOMESTIC TROUBLES. Henry Gardener w T as charged on remand with assaulting his wife, Catherine Gardener. Mr White appeared for the accused. The complainant stated that she was in fear lest her husband should do her bodily harm. The accused was ordered to find one surety of £25 that he would keep the peace towards his wife for 6 months. The Court then adjourned.