MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Press, Volume XXI, Issue 2493, 1 August 1873, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, July 31. [Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M, and C. P. Cos, Esq., J.P.] Drunk and Disorderly—James Burrows, charged by Constable Gaffney, was fined 40s or in default ninety-six hours' imprisonment. Wife Desertion —William White, who had been remanded on a charge of deserting his wife, again appeared before the Bench. The defendant agreeing to allow hie wife £1 per week for the future was discharged upon that understanding. Breach op Police Ordinance—Archibald Hamill was charged with allowing his horse and 'bus to remain on the South town belt, to wit at the railway station on the loth July, thereby causing an obstruction, and refusing to move when, told to do so by the police. The defendant said he had had permission from the station master, Mr Jones, to remain where he was, and wished to call him as a witness. Under these circumstances his Worship remanded the case until this morning.

Cattle Trespass.—Fines were inflicted in the following cases for allowing horses and cattle to wander at large: —Wm Gittings, two horses, ss. John Fleming, one horse, ss. Christopher Dalwood, two horses, ss. Georgiana Smith, one cow, in Prebbleton, ss. Creating a Disturbance in a Licensed House.—Joseph Keetley, William Rogers, Thomas Foster, William Veitch, John Wilson, Philip Tisch, Benjamin Strange, and Wm Varcoe, were cbarged with creating a disturbance in the Sawyers' Arms, Papanui, on the night of the Ist of July. John Wild, the landlord of the hotel, said, on the night in question, a dinner took place after tbe district ploughing match. He had an extension of bis license, and the dinner commenced at 7. Mr Norman occupied the chair. When the toasts commenced some parties in the room by their interruption and noisy talking interrupted the proceedings. Amongst the latter were the defendants Keetley and Rogers. A resolution was passed, that any one disturbing the speakers would have to leave the room, and the defendant Keetley was tbe first to infringe this rule. It was then proposed that Mr Keetly should leave (heroom, and the attempt to enforce the rule was the immediate cause of the disturbance in which the defendant, Benjamin Strange, took a prominent part by attempting to eject the defendant Wilson. Mr Tisch took no active part in the row. The fighting was not of a serious nature, more resembling scuffling. The only blo-vs he saw struck were by the defendant Varcoe, who assaulted Wilson. William Norman, who was chairman on the occasion, said the disturbance commenced through the noisy interruptions of the defendant Rogers, which necessitated his being shaken by the vice-chairman. Mr Tisch. The immediate cause of the scuffle was the attempt of Benjamin Strange to put out Wilson, who had expressed his determination not to allow the defendant Keetly to be ejected from the room. He (witness) had been at a great many plooghing-match dinners, but he never saw anything so bad before as what took place that night. Henry Woolridge, the waiter on the night in question, said, early in the evening Mr Rogers was very troublesome, and Mr Tisch, the vice-chair-man, first threatened to put him out, and eventually pulled him back in his seat, aud shook him. Mr Wild, Thomas Foster, and he (witness) took Rogers out of the room, and he saw no more of him until late in the evening. The next cause of the disturbance was the behaviour of Mr Keetly, who prevented, by verbal interruptions, the prize list being read by the secretary. A resolution had been passed that the next person who interrupted the proceedings would have to leave the room, and it was in the attempt to enforce this rule with regard to the defendant Keetly that Benjamin Strange and Wilson came into collision. A witness named Morgan stated Mr Keetly's health had been drank, and when be attempted to reply it

•was suggested that he should be compelled to leave, the room. Wilson said he would not allow Keetley to be turned out, and thereupon Benjamin Stransrc jumped over the tablfl and assaulted Wi's-w. A scufSethcutookplace. His Worshipsaid he was ! of opinion that the row was unpremeditated and apparently had been caused by everybody trying to keep each other in order, but the" resuic was most unfortunate. The immediate cause of the disturbance appeared to be the attempt, In eject Rogers, who from she evidence, appeared to by the quietest man amongst the lor. As tho-e was no reason to believe : '<:- ro'.v premeditated and there boine some diilicnlfy in apportioning ezactly each one's share of the disturbance, he would dismiss the case trusting snch a scene would not occur aeain at any future ploughing match dinner. The defendants thanked his Worship and withdrew. Violent Assault — Thomas O'Connell and Wm Chapman, remanded from Wednesday, were again brought up on a charge of assaulting Philippa Huddy. Mr Thomas appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Joynt for the -defendants. Mr Thomas called a witness named Thomas Lunnon, who said he saw Mrs Huddy about eight o'clock in the morning. She was excited on account of her husband having broken some crockery during a domestic quarrel ; but she was entirely free from the influence of liquor. A witness named Dixon gave evidence as to the complainant and her husband quarrelling on the morning in question, when the latter went away. He subsequently saw a man coming over the bridge, followed by Mrs Huddy, who came over _ to his house, and wanted him to go over to her house, but he refused to go. The witness was unable in any w;iy to identify the defendants with the assault, alleged to be committed on Mrs Huddy. Another witness, named Dehell, said he saw the complainant following some men with a hammer in her hand. She came into Dixon's house and wanted some one to go over to her house, and asked him (the witness) but he refused, and she then tried to pick a quarrel with him, which he avoided. She' then went out and he (witness) saw her in company with three or four men, one of whom she struck with a hammer, and the man said, " If you were not a woman you should get it ;" or words to that effect. He (witness) left the house to avoid the complainaut who alarmed him by her violence. He had known her for some years, and had once seen her in a similar rage. He could not identify either of the defendants with the men he saw Mrs Huddy speaking to, who were all strangers to him. The wit" nees could not swear that either of the defendauts was one of the men he saw when he saw Mrs Huddy use the hammer. He knew she had struck one of the men by the motion of the hammer rising and falling. He paw the woman fall on the ground apparently from the effects of a push given by one of the meu. He cou'd not say whethers he fell from the effects of a blow given by a man's list. After he saw the woman fall he told Mrs Dixon, who went out and picked her up, but he (witness) did not consider it was any business of his to interfere. A witness named Murray said he was walking over the bridge on the day in question in company with three men, of whom the defendants were two. The defendant Chapman went to Mrs Huddy's house and asked for the loan of a cup to drink out of, but immediately came back pursued bj- Mrs Huddy, with a hammer in her hand. She then went into Dixon's house and afterwards came out in a very wild state, and struck the fourth man of their party two or three times with a hammer. He either pushed or knocked her down, but at all events she fell down. He saw her on the ground and the man she had struck whose name was Palmer was leaving her. The man Chapman who went for the pannikin to the house, said Mrs Huddy refused to lend it, and she said something about being bad from the effects of drink. In cross-examination by Mr Thomas the witness could positively swear that the defendant O'Connell did not strike the complainant. Mr Jojnt called Frederick Wilson, in whose employment the defendants were. This witness said O'Connell was a quiet inoffensive man, and as for Chapman he was jolly sort of jack tar, and both of them most unlikely to assault any one. The case was dismissed. Civil Cases.—Twentyman and Cousin v George Millett, claim £2 7slod. Judgment by default, for full atrount, and costs 10s. — " Press " Company, (limited) v Sam Howard and Achille Fleury, claim £11 IGs 9d. Judgment by default for full amount and costs 27s. —George J. Palmer v John Hart, claim £5. Mr Thomas for defendant; tendered ss. Judgment for 20s, and costs 9s.—Edward Hollan.v J. D. Wagner, claim £1 12s sd. Judgment for £1 10s, and costs 9s.