MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4481, 4 September 1882, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

«, CHRTSTCHUROH. This Day. (Before J. Ollivier, Esq.. R.M., J. E. Porker, B. Westenra, and G. L. ' cc, Esq ) Dbunibuness — A first offender, who did not appear, was fined 10a. Five others were fitaed 5a each. — Martin Warren, an old offender, was fined £3, or in default Bevon days' imprisonment. AM.BGBD BEBAOH or THB Peace —Charles Cooper, James Wihinson, and Frederick Bradley were accused or committing a breach of the peace in view of a constable From the evidence of two constables, it appeared that there was a wordy war, in which tbe acoused were concerned, neir the Commercial Hotel at 12 30 o'clook on Sunday morning Subsequently the parties— about twelve in number— adjourned to Oathodral Bquaro, whero blows took the placo of words, and a cry of " police " was raised. Two constables rushed up, aud found a general fight in progress. Bradley and Wilkinson were both kuooked down, and appeared to bo getting the worst of tho frays when they and Cooper were arrested. Cooper, who pleaded guilty, was oalled by tbe polico aB a witness. He said he did not recollect anything at all except that *he got a " clout in the mouth" ard was taken away in a cab. Sergeant Mason said he had hoped this last witness would have been able to give some information, and he had so further evidence to offer. The Bench had no doubt that a disturbance had taken place, but the police seemed to have taken the wrong men ; the polioa were, however, perfeotly justified in endeavouring to stop the disturbance. The acoused would be discharged. Besibting thb Police.— Henry Kitchen, arrested by Constable Herlihy, for committing an offence in Victoria street, was find 10a for resisting the constable by whom he had been arrested on the road to the lock-up. BbMOTINO ftEFUSE WITHOUT AtJTIIOHITr. — Charles Baird waa accused of removing house refuse from the promises of E. 0. Painter, Lichfield street, on August 16, such refuse not being for sale or intended for tlio owner's use, Mr Stringer appeared for the defendant. Mr Garrick, on behalf of the City Council, said that the information had been laid under section 47 of tho Public Health Act, 1876. The one was ono of some importance as affoctitg the City Council in their endeavour to maintain their position ns Board of Health for Ohristchurch. With reference to the removal of houso refuse, the Council had entered into a contract with Mr Bfightling for this purpose, and the defendant undertook Bimiiar work e»n his own acoount, without any authority from the Council. Mr Garrick called F. T. Raskins, Town Clerk, who deposed that the Chrietchurch City Council had been appointed Board of Health for Ohristchuroh, and Mr Brightling tho authorised contractor for tho removal of houso refuse. If the practice of defendant was continued, it would tend to vitiate the contract. B. J. Leahy gave evidence as to the commission of tho alleged offonce. E. J. Painter, the ocoupior, deposed that he had paid defendant 3d for removal of the rubbish. Believed he had paid Baird several timeß for n similar purpose. The latter had asked for the job. Did not koep the house refuao for any purpose, or for salo. Mr SLringer said that after hearing the evidence, he would admit the offonce, and if he wished to test the case further woul.l instruct his client to commit another offence. He (Mr Stringer) had only been instructed that morning and was not thoroughly prepared. Mr Garriok would not press for a heavy penalty, but thought it only right that costs Bhould bo allowed. The Bench considered that clauso 47 of the Public Hoalth Act was very clear, and the defendant had offended against it. A nominal fine of Is would bo imposed in consideration of a heavy penalty sot being pressed for ; the defondant to pay all costs. AIjTjBQBD Damage to Paorßßiy.— William English and Elizabeth English were charged with damaging a hut, value £5, the property of James Le Bean. Mr Spackman appeared for the dofendant. The evidenoo showed that defendants had been in possession of Borne land at Grceupark for the past 14 years, holding under lease from Mr Campbell. The complainant ha d recently built a hut on this land, and put his cattle upon it, without any authority to clo so. Defendants had pounded the cattle and pulled down tho hut. The Bench considered that complainant had "no shadow of a case," aud dismissed tlio information, complainant to pay coßts and eolicitor's foo £2 Is. BiißAcn of Stamp Act— Peter Hill wao accused of noeloting to file with tho Commissioner of Stamps a statement of tho property of D. McDonald J. Hill, docessen, in whose estate he was administrator, within six month* aftor tho granting of lottors of administration. The defondant admitted tho offence, but pleaded that preosin;; business engagements had prevontecl him from filing tho etatoment. Mr Martin, who appo -*o<i for the prosecution, explained that il was necessary that tho statement naould bo fiU-d for the purpose of enabling the aßsof-t-mont ot stamp duty. Tho penalty under tho .Act, won very heavy — any sum not exceeding £500 - and further refusal to comply wi'.h the law rendered the defendant liable to impri-nin-ment by the Supremo Court. A fino of £2 and costs waß imposed.