RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Yesterday.—(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.]

Waikato Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1917, 18 October 1884, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAMBRIDGE. Yesterday.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.]

The Lamps, the Lahrikins, and thk Liquor. Two young men, named respectively James Frazer, and Henry Bell, were chai god on tho information of Constable William Bremian with stealing two Chinese lanterns from the front of tlie National Hotel, tlie property of MrGillott, on tho evening of the Bth October. A youth named Daniel Dillon was also charged witli disoideily and larrikin conduct on the same occasion. Constable Brennan prosecuted; the accused were undefended. In answer to the charge Frazer said that they had got moie drink than was good for them. Had they been sober they would not have acted as they had. They did not steal the lanterns, but merely took them for a bit of fun. It was holiday time and they were just a little on the " loose." Bell haul ho did not know anything about tho matter until sometime aftei. It was, the dunk that did it. Constable Brennan explained the circumstances of the case. Tlie offence was committed on the occasion of the opening of the Cambridge branch railway, when certain amusements and entertainments weie piovided for the public by ceit.un gentlemen at a great deal of expense and tiouble. The front of the National Hotel was decoiated with Chinese lanterns, and a display of fiieworks was made in tho (4n\ eminent paddock opposite. Tlie gentlemen who weie conducting the display weio gieatly annoyed by a number of boys, of whom Dillon was the ringleader. The otl.ei two accused, Bell and Fra/ei, walked oft with a lantern each, notwithstanding being cautioned against taking them by poisons in charge. The conduct of all tin cc was\ ci y annoying to the public. Henry (Jillett, landloul of the National Hotel, gave evidence to tho effect that lie missed the lanterns, and subsequently found out that Frazer and Bell had taken them In having the accused piosecuted he did not wish to see them seveiely punished. He was only desirous that an e\aiuplo should be afforded, so that on futme occasions of this nature these people should know how to behave themselves, and not interfeie with the enjoyment of the public. Joseph Harrison, who was in charge of the fireworks, stated that the boy Dillon had been a somce of gieat annoyance to him thioughout the evening. He had pcis'^ently mailed the effect of every item of the display by his bad conduct, and had he (witness) caught hold of him, a bieacli of the peace must have inevitably occuned. John Arnold also gave evidence. Ho Raw Bell and Fiazer take the lantern^ and cautioned Bell against doing ho. Fi\uer s;ud he had gone to Mr Cillclc cm heaung of the pioceedmgs being tiken against them to put matteis light. He did not know wheie tho lantern was, or lie would have 1 (.'turned it. He w.isceitamly , very sorry, and had expressed himself so to MrGillett. Hib Woiship thought that accoicling to the accused's own confession they should be theie on a chaige of drunkenness as well as for stealing lanterns Dillon said he had nothing to say fin himself. Constable Biennan said tlie genoial chaiactei of the accused was good. Tho object of the pi osecution v as not to have them soveiely punished, but moie puticulaily to affoul a caution, that the laiukinism which the offjnees indicatjd might bo nipped in its infancy. He would only, pio^ for the infliction of a nominal fine with costs to meet the ends of justice. His Woi ship said he hoped the accused would take into considciation the lenient manner in which tho police and the complainant had desiied to see them dealt w ith, and also the leniency which the bench had extended to them. When they got diunk they must not think that they v\oie pinileged to go about the town annovmg the public. When people assembled foi an evening's amusement it was veiy haul that their amusement should be spoiled bv, young 1 men who had got no better excuse to oftei than that they weie chunk. They must not think that they rould thus annoy and spoil other people's enjoyment with impunity, and make other people's piopeity the subject ot their jokes. They (the accused) might call such fun a.i ebullition ot *-pnits> on their pait, but h" c mid teim it nothing else than youthful blackguardism, w Inch was not to be' countenanced. He vvoiild hue Dillon Is, and 20s costs, iind Fia/ei and Bell wne ordered to pay Is (id e.ich, the value of tho piopeity taken, and 20s each costs.

i)LSEun:n ciiii,i)Ki.x, Richaid James Gieeuing w.is called on a. charge prefened a^anu-t linn nuclei the Industiial Schoolb Act, INS 2, but did not appear. Edwin Smith, officer appointed nude: the above act, gave evidence. The accused was the fathei of two boys who ucie taken in chaige by the (ioveiiiment at Masteiton on tho 15th Febiuniy, 1881. At that time be (the fathei) was oideicd to p.iv .~>s a iveek foi the maintenance ut c icb child. After paying about ±!(> he cleaied out, and it was lecontly discouued that he had taken up his lcsidence at Ol.inemutn, and a .summons had been ]SMi..d ,i;jun^t linn accoidmgly. Theie were .meai-, l<> the extent of £130 inulei the old onlei, which he dc-ued to be cancelled, th.it a fiesh oulei inifjht b<> lNsiifd. Tlieie veie onginally thioe chiid;en, but oi.e had now arri\ed at foui t"en -\.mis of ag>, .iiid u.s^ kouipii'JT luni'-elf, haMiiy b-en | ut out l>y the (-Jo\ eminent ri Ciuteibmy The defendant \ui^ no'v j'ei-tm;; t'J i " 'cV .i-, coach-chnei foi M\ liobji'ion, OhiiKMii .til. He would ask that (>- a ">o<\ foi e.scii child was a-> little as he could be asked to pay. Order made accoidmgly foi 0s a week foi each child, payment to commence fiom date. Arthur Wilson was called on a .similar charge, but did not appeal. Edwin Smith appealed also to piosccuto in this case. Theie weie four children, two boy and two gul«, for which the defendant wab required te pay maintenance. The two boys weie in the Kohimaiama Industn.il School, and the" two gul-, were boarded out. The wheieabouts of the defendant were unknown until lecentlv. He was employed a<- a c.iipentcr at Mourn-, ville, and eaimngoser i'J a week, and wai suppoitins no one but himself. His wife was employed as a bai maid at Auckland. It cost the Government 2o\ a-week foi the maintenance of the font cluldien Oideied to pay /5s a-week for tho maintenance of each child.

jut hvxnf;i:u)'s iiokm: cyst. MrDjei, on behalf of the defendant in the case Meie Wakatutu v. J<is. Ransfield, an action lecently hoaid for the leeoNury of a hor->e, the p i- npnty of the plaintiff, v. itli damago^, applied for an extension of time .in. winch to pay the amount of the judgment. The defendant, llansfield, had done all iv his power to &atisfy the judgment of the couit by giving up the hoi he, but he had no means of paying the money claim which stood against him. He lequired a month's extension, when he believed he would be able to pay the amount. — Mr Keesing, who appealed for Mr H.vv, opposed the application, and addie&sed the court at some length in suppoit of his objection. — Hih Worship refused the apjjlication.— Ransfield h.id not shown a willingness to comply with the order of the court, as he had not given up the horse until he was absolutely obliged to do so. This was all the business.