RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume XIII, Issue 1731, 26 September 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHBisTCHU.cii-september 21. j [Before C. CJBowra, Esq., R.M.] IX&-TRATISG A WIFE Edward M'Coul vas brought up in custody charged with assaulting and threatening his wife. ■ . ■'."•:■■■ ': Complainant sited that on Wednesday morning defendat caught hold of her, tore her drtss, fsnid h< wouldknock her down, nnd otherwise behaveiin ro violent a manner that she was obligad t leave the house. Hβ had for a lons time ast treated her crunlly, had constantly threjened, but never struck her, as ehe always *>k caro to keep out of his way. Sergeant Part) stated that when he arrested prisoifer the lattr was drunk. As complain* hayo been made by the neighbours to he police about the way in which defendan :a accustomed to treat hie wife, his Wordip adjourned the case until the next day n order that further evidence might be obtaiud. AXLOWIXG H(BiES TO "WANDEB AT LAHGE. Eichard Clatfe was fined 10s for tetheriDg a horse on Oifod tereace, and W. S. Ivens and Thomas Cleiham were each mulcted in the sum of ss. eoh for allowing a horse to wander at large iiCathedral «quare. 1 $BUTB. Edmund Iluit vas charged with illtreating a horse. i Constable O*Damor stated that at about half-past five ocbek on Wednesday, the 16th met. he saw tefindant on Victoria Bridge, beating s hie hoea most cruelly. over the b.ead frith a heavy rij&tigtvhip. Witness remonstrated with him, but defndant made no reply, and continued beating he horso, finally driving it at a gallop down tie Papanui road. Witness made enquiries, am went to Beecher's stables the next morning,where he found the horse very much cut aud bruised about the head and shoulders, while mc of liis eyes, was covered with scum, tWcfeote of tlie baating it had received. A witnees aaai«d Bellamy corroborated the last witness's evidbnee, and further stated that, before the policenau arrived, he saw the defendant beat the horse moat cruelly for about ten minutes in frmt of the Government buildings. J. Beecher deposed that the animal was hie property. Ho ewr it the morning after it had been beaten, an! found cuts and bruises all ■over'its body. lop.BOxne time it was doubtful whether it would not lose the sight of one eye in consequence. The defendant in excuse of his conduct, said the horse was restive, and he did not know what to do with it. Ilia Worship said that, in consideration of the fact that a civil action was pending against defendant for tie injury done to the horse, the Court would mly., : inflict a fi/ie. of 10s, but would order the defendant to pay the expenses of three witnesses. BBEACHOF POLICE OBDINANCE. Eobert Fallom was fined 10s for leaving his horse and cart while in motion. OTP THE STAGE CABBIAGE ORDINANCE. James Franks, the driver of the Kaiapoi coach, was proved to have been driving a coach ; wiihout the legal notification of the number of' paisengera t>eing affixed thereto, and was fined 10s. BBEJCHC Or CITX BY-LAWS. A cab-drive: named T. C. Mul'.ins was fined 20s for carryirg goods in his vehicle, it not being duly licraeed for that purpose. INDECENCY. Martin Muiday was charged with committing an act of indecency on the footpath in Armagh street Sergeant Eardy proved the offenco. The defendant denied the charge, and said he was in a paddock and not on the footpath at the time. Fined 20*. A KAXICIOUS INSOBMEB. William Prebble was charged, on three informations, with sly grog selling. Mr' W:- Williams appeared for the defendant, and asked that the information respecting an olFenee alleged, to hay? been committed on the 12th September, eliould be taken first, as he was instructed that the informant, a man named McLavgWin v lia.d.merely acted through malicious motives. The Court acceded.to tho application. Patrick McLaughlin, tho informant, upon being put into the witness bor, and asked what he knew about the felling of liquor by defendant on the 12th instant, said that he knew nothing about the matter. He went to the police to the recovery of his wages. His Worship warnedthe .witness to be very careful of what' if*- 'saitf, a« 'his evidence was being taken down in writing. The witness said he made no complaint to the police about liquor being sold. He made a complaint about Mr Prebble, his employer, stopping lfis'fages fyrbept. Cross-examined by Inspector Pender—On the night of the 12th witness had three or four glasses of beer in defendant's house. Two or- three other men, named-.John Donald, O'LaugiiJin, and Alex, wlio "were in defendant's employ, were present at the time. The beer was.ipbtainecL in two cans from a public house. Witness believed that- Alex, the epgi?) e . er » sHPjIJsS thSJ? j and also that the defendant paicl for It. Inspector Pender produced the report, in writing, made bythe last witness when; laying the information. McLaughlin said he was anxious* to 'have the defendant punished for soiling grog. McLaughlin was quita sober at the time. r McLaughlin, on being again put into the witness-box, said that, when lie laid the information he told Inspector Pender that he drank the beer in Mr Edward Prebble's ; and that ho paid two shillings for two pots of beer at the same place. He said that he saw O'Laughlin pay is for beer, but could libt remember whether he said that he himself paid la for another pot of beerj as he was under the influence of liquor while laying the information. Hoi did not know whether he said Jth&fe; $eer ; was; taken put; jof, a hogshead that stood in the house. His Worship told the -witness he might stand down. He had just had the impudence to ask who was to pay his expenses ; the Court would now .consider whether it ought not to send him for trial for perjury. Mr Williams said in justice to his client, he must state that he had four witnesses to prove that, although Mr Prebble was, in the habit of keeping a cask of beer in bis'house in order that he; mighs occasionally giyei come to his men, there was en the night named in the information, no beer whatever in the house. His Worship would, hear one ..witnesn'e evidence. : ''" ■■■'-'-- '- '' ; i-'!. i David O'Laugblin was then called, and deposed tliat. he wiw iv defendants liousc at tl-.o'time but saw~no titer sold-nor was there ■any in the house; ;; Witness,, did not ccc McLaughlin in tho house lhat night. ' His Worship jcsoiiameiited apyerely upon McLaughlin's conduct, and dismissed the case. Mr Williams asked that McLaughlin should be ordered to pay the costs ot the three subpo?ned witnesses An information would be laid against him for perjury. The Magistrate remarked that ifc was a monetrous ease, and he would under tlin circumstances order the informant to pay 15s to each witness. . - PEBJTJET. At a Iftta period of the day, Patrick McLauglilin was brought up charged on the infcrtiiatiou oC Mr William Prebble, with perjiisy. After lieasing fhe eviiien'ce, His Worship did not ccuji.ic-r it suiSt-ient to justify him in ti'.e for trial, and therefore discharged t!ia jirisoner, at tli3 same time cautioning the latter that he had had a very narrow escapo. ESBACHE3 CF IHS PtBLTC-nOUSS OBDINAXCB John Fox, landlord of the Prince of "Wales Hole', appeared to answer an information charging him with selling liquor during prohibited hoiira. Sergeant' Pardy stated that about midday on Sunday, tlie 13th instant, he went into the hotel, and found two men sitting in.the parlo?. Upeju seeing 'him, one of them covered a pot, of beer with his hat, and the other'put a pot of beer in the corner. Witnes3 aaked the Da if they were lodging in the house.

They evaded the question for come time, but at last admitted that they slept in a stable elo«e by, belonging to Mr Coloman. Alfred Bowman, one of the men in question, was called a3 a witness, and et<»!ed that he was a carter in the employ of Mr Coleman, and had no Bottled residence, but generally went to the Prince of "VValea for refreshment when ho was in town. On the Sunday in question he went to the hotel just before dinner, and the meal being not quite ready ordered come beer. There were two other men in the room at the time, both of whom were drivers. Hβ considered that he was a lodger in tho house on thut day. The defendant said lie considered the men to be lodgers. His Worship was of opinion that a breach of the Ordinance had been proved, os the men served with liquor could not be regarded as lodgers ; but as the case was not an aggravated one, he should only inflict a fine of 10s ; at the same time if the defendant repeated the offence, he would not be so leniently dealt with. Frederick King, landlord of the Junction Hotel, was charged with a similar offence. Sergeant Pardy stated that at about a quarter past ten o'clock on Sunday morning, the 13th instant, he saw the bar-door of defendant's house open, and upon going in, found several men standing in front of the bar, and the defendant in the act of supplying one of them with liquor, William Tancred, one of the men alluded to by tho sergeant, stated that he resided near Ward's brewery, and that he only went to the bar to ask defendant for the loan of the "Evening Mail." He saw no liquor supplied, nor did he hear any called for. Defendant was at that time, drawing two glasses of liquor when the policeman entered, but not, he believed, for the purpose of sale. The defendant denied the charge, and said he was filling two glasses of spirits when the sergeant came in ; one of them for the use of his wife in tho kitchen, and the other for a lodger. The front door was left opeu for the accommodation of lodgers. Inspector Tender said the houao was generally well conducted. His Worship considered that a deliberate breach of the law had been committed, but taking into consideration the good character given to tho house by the police, he should only inflict a fine of one half the amount that it otherwise would have been. The defendant must pay a penalty of £3 10s. civil.. In the following cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the amounts claimed and costs: — George Dulcer v. John O'Malley, £2 ss; M'Keever and Mann v. Patterson, £2 6s 2d'; Brownell and Co v. O'Donoghue, £1& 16s 3d ; E. Church v. Sparer, £3 4a. In the case of William Snell v. T. S. MacGrowan, £17, judgment was given for £15 and costs.

Friday, September 25. [Before C. C. Bo wen, Esq, E.M.] ASSAULT. Edward McCourfc was brought up, on the charge of having violently assaulted his wife. The case had been remanded from the previous day for the production of further evidence. . The Inspector stated that two witnesses had been summoned by the police. . —- . - It appeared from the evidence that the complainant had on some occasions taken refuge in their houses, in order to avoid the violence of the defendant. He had used threatening language towards them and tow.ards her. Disturbances had taken place in their house. Defendant pleaded intoxication, and promised amendment. His Worship said, that in the present instance there had been no positive mal-treat-ment, and that, he should therefore dismiss the information, on the distinct understanding that the defendant would keep his promise of abstaining from drink. If he again appeared on a similar charge, he would be more seveiely dealt with.