RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1244, 2 June 1864, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH.— Wednesday, June 1 (Before J. Brittan, Esq., R.M.)

Drunk and Disorderly.—Thomas Water worth was charged with this offence. It appeared from the evidence of Sergeant M'Cann that the prisoner had been very drunk on Tuesday last, and had created a great disturbance in the neighbourhood of the Golden Fleece. The prisoner, who stated that he had ouly been five months in the province, was fined I Os. Larceny.—Hugh McCormick was brought up on the charge of having stolen a dog collar. Robert Lee stated that one of his friends had informed him that he had seen the prisoner take the collar off the neck of a dog belonging to him. Oil meeting the prisoner, witness taxed him with the theft, on which he admitted having the collar in his possession, but denied that he had taken it off the dog's neck; he handed the collar to witness. The collar was produced in Court and identified by Lee as his property. He mentioned the number on it, and showed the register of the dog. On being asked by the Resident Magistrate if he had any defence to offer, the prisoner repeated the assertion which he had made to Lee, and the case was remanded until later in the day, in order that another witness might be produced. On the resumption of the hearing, Henry Young was called as a witness and stated that the prisoner came to the shop of Mr. Mein, by whom he (witness) was employed. A dog with a collar on was following him ; the prisoner asserted that the dog belonged to him. Witness saw the prisoner stoop down and remove the collar from the dog's neck. He informed Lee of the circumstance. Whilst witness was talking to Lee the prisoner passed them, and witness pointed him out as the person who had taken the collar off the dog s neck. The prisoner was sober at the time. The Resident Magistrate observed that the prisoner had very clearly violated the law wilfully. The act of which he hud been guilty was a direct theft. As it was the first offence under the Ordinance, lie (the Resident Magistrate) was willing to deal as leniently as possible with the prisoner. The sentence would be imprisonment with hard labour for fourteen days, and it must be distinctly understood that persons who, for the future, might be guilty of a similar offence would be severely punished.

TlMAßU.—Wednesday, Mat 25. (Before George W. Hall, Esq., J.P., Chairman; John Hall, Esq., J.P.; Thomas W.Hall, Esq., J.P.; and W. H. Simms, Esq., J.P.) Do« Nuisance.—Messrs. Dark, Parkerson, Ostler, Meidrum, Eraser, and Sheath were charged with a broach of the Dog Nuisance Ordinance by having certain unregistered dogs in their possession. The case against Sheath was dismissed, and the others were fined in the miuimum penalty of £1 for each dog. Garity v. Jas. Gihson —Assault.—The parties in the above case appeared to have had some differences about a trotting match, and to be equally in fault, consequently the case was dismissed. : Plaintiff to pay costs. (Before George W. Hall, Esq., and W. H. Simms, Esq., J.P.'s.) Regina by Simi'son v. Povntz,—The accused was charged with stealing timber from John Simpson, builder, of Timaru. He had been einpl oyed to cart timber from the Witfmati bush to the new school house, and had disposed of one load to a Mr. Bonner, of Pareora, but intended repaying, it, with, timber be-, longing to himself. The evidence was very conflicting, and the magistrates did not think it sufficient to warrant a committal.