MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Press, Volume XXXI, Issue 4281, 19 April 1879, Page 2

MAGISTRATES ' COURTS.

—• — CHRISTOHUROH.

WXDBESDAY, ApßUi 16. | Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M.] I Dmthnc Asn> Disobdkbly.—One drunkard was fined 20s. Dibobdkbly Conduct ik a Railway ' Cassias*. —John Brown was charged with \ misbehaving himsslf in a railway carriage. Mr Neck appeared, for the defendant, who ' stated that he had been to the races and uni fortunately took many stimulants to keep out 1 the wet. A fine of 10s was inflicted. Henry Nevin was also charged with conduct calcu--1 lated to praroke a breach of the peace. Con. 1 stable Nelson deposed that he arrested the prisoner early the same morning. He was shouting out in the streets and generally beh&Ting in a violent manner. He was fined ss. Vagbahoy.—Joseph Evans Whitbey was brought up under the Vagrant Aotchaiged with haying no lawful risible means of support. The partionlarß of this painful esse ' are already before the public. The acoused, a colored man, has been in better circumstances, but was now unable to earn a living. The police since the first time the aoouaed had first been before the Court had tried to get -i>m i«t» tk» Aahhurtan Homo, but Swgeant Moriee stated the chairman of the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board had informed him that institution was only intended for the aged and infirm, and although the defendant had been unfortunate he did not come within that category. Sergeant Moriee endorsed the statements of the accused as to his endeavors to earn an honest livelihood by various methods, and informed the Bench he was neither a loafer or a bad character, consequently he was not eligible for the gaoL The Bench discharged the defendant, and Sergeant Moriee promised to see Mr 3. E. March and some other influential gentlemen, and try what could be done to ensure his support in the future. FAitnra to Pbovtdb.—John Doig, on remand, was brought up on a charge of failing to provide his wife and family with adequate means of support. Mr Neck appeared for the defendant, and informed the Bench that the whole oharge was a disgraceful one. He had given the applicant on behalf of the defendant £3 as her allowance for three weeks, under an order of the Court, and she had got drunk on it, and then summoned her husband for failing to support her. There was a sum of money belonging to the defendant in Mr Garland's hands, and he (Mr Neck) had at that moment £10 of the defendant's money, all of which was to go to the support of the applicant and her family. His Worship said he should make no further order in the matter, as it was proved that the defendant was able and willing to comply with the order of the Court, and pay his wife £1 per week. Mr Neck, on behalf of the defendant, tendered the complainant £1 in Court, which she refused. Mr Neck informed the Bench if she had more money she wculd only misuse it. The parties then left the court. Civil Cabbb. —Harman and Stevens vF. Webber, claim £45, rent and possession of premises ; judgment by consent, with £110s costs. George Booth v J. Williams, claim £39 5s lid; judgment by consent, costs £1 lis. H. Lunn v W. H. Mem and E. M. Mem, claim £30; judgment for plaintiff, costs £1 16*. J. B. Dale and Co. vW. Fawcett, claim £78; judgment by consent, costs £2 7s. Mason, Struthers and Co. v J. 8. Savage, claim €25 Os 8d ; judgment by default, £1 10j costs. Moore and Son v H. M. Goodger, claim £39 6s 6d ; judgment for plaintiff by default, costs £110s. Ballin Brothers v Maty Devery, claim £48 6b ; judgment for plaintiff by default, costs £1 14s. P. and D. Duncan v W. Ledgerwood, claim £26 3s 6d ; judgment for plaintiffs by default, costs £1 19s. Mason, Struthers and Co. v W. Barnard, claim £36 10j; judgment for plaintiffs by default, costs £1 lis. New Zealand Trust and Loan Co. (limited) v P. Pearce, claim £28 17s 6d; judgment for plaintiff by consent, £1 10s costs. C. A. Übzlh vWThompson, claim £20; judgment for plaintiff by consent, costs 15s. B. McPhersun yA. Gee, claim £57 lis 3d ; judgment by consent for plaintiff, costs £2, solicitor's fee £1 Is. J. Kay t B. Jackson, claim £2 18s ; amount paid into Court lets £L; defendant was ordered to pay the balance forthwith or to suffer seven days' imprisonment. B. Churoh rG. W. Ell, claim £25 3s; the defendant was ordered to pay the amount at the rate of one-half in one month from date and the balance in two months, costs £2, in default two weeks'imprisonment. Strange and Co. v P. Fawcett, claim £29 13s 7d; judgment for plaintiff by default, costs £112s 6d. Fbiday, Apbillß. (Before G. L. Mellish, E*q., 8.M., and Messrs Hall and Harman, J.P.'s.) Dbuhk ahd DiaoßDßßLY—Three drunkards were fined respectively 20s, 10s, and ss. _ A fourth, who was remanded from the previous day, proteited that he could bring a thousand witnesses of the highest respectability to show that he was not in the habit of drinking to excess. A list of eleven previous convictions, and the fait that when remanded he was completely hort di combat, was accepted by the Bench, as prima fane evidence of his inebriety,-and he was accordingly fined 10s also.

ASHBF&TON. Thxtbsdat, Apbtl 17. [Before A- I* a-. Campbell, Etq., 8.M., and J. Campbell mid J. Beswick, E«q»., JJP.'e.j DeuhxskkmS. — James Smith wu die* muted with a caution, and George Young and Charles Miller were charged with being drank and disorderly in a licenced house. Young wae fined 20s and Miller lCs. Onraon Aoaxwst thb Pbbbok Act — : John Bell, assistant shunter for some time tt •■ Ashburton station, wu brought up charged with this offeace, lib. Inspector Fender Mid

the railway authorities did not intend to press the caee for* heavy penalty. Mr Duncan appeared to watch the eu« on behalf of thesjrailway department, and Mr. Branson jJpKred for Bell. Benjunin Pilkington —I am station-mister at Ashbur- '&&* John Bell was employed on the railw*j up to the 11th nit. as ateutant shunter. H# vh suspended on that date on account of an accident. Accused acted under mjr instructions, and under a foreman named George Shann. Hit duties vera to attend to the running ia of the various trains and •hunting at the poinU, and to see they were all left right for the main line again. The accused had a rule book supplied by tbe railway department. On leaving tho station the rule book produced was returned to witness when accused was discharged. There was also a time book in accused's possession. On the morning of the 11th of March he took .from the south end of yard to the north end of yard, to attach it to a goods train which was in the siding. The points were left open for the siding. I saw him on the , engine -pawing the platform, , going to j attach it to tbe goods train. I saw him about ten minutes afterwards near the cattle yards siding, and seeing he wss not occupied, ,1 gave him instructions to fetea another engine from the north end of the station. He did this, and after this the express train was in sight. I told Shann and 'the accused that an extra carriage was to be'attached to the rear of the express directly on its arrival. I told both men to stop there and see that it was properly done; The accused then.' went to hi* usual place at tile point* at the north end of the station. The signal was immediately lowered for the express to come in. The accident happened immediately the express came in. The line marked bide on the map produoed is the one the express went on, instead of the main line, to where Bell was stationed. The train ran on the wrong line, owing to the points being left open for the siding. It waa the duty of Bell to shut the points. The point* should be locked by the pointsman. The accused had a key, and should have locked the points directly after turning engine No. 81 down the siding, or as soon ac he had done »hunting, and ought not to have left the points without putting them right for the main line. I have verbally instructed him to lock the points on every occasion of using them. These are part of the standing regulations. To my knowledge there had been no other person at the points after Bell had left them. Bell acknowledged having left the points open after the accident, and said he could not help it, cc he had forgotten them. Hβ said this in the presence of the general manager and witness. Considerable damage was done to the goods train. The engine and several carriages were damaged. The accused had been employed about a month. The accident caused delay to some of the trains. I had cautioned him about these and other facing points previously, telling him to be careful, as if he neglected to look the points there would be sure to be an accident some day. This is the main trunk line of the Middle Island. By Mr Branson—Accused had only been a month at the station. Hβ came to work at 8.30 a.m., and at 10 30 a in. he took engine No. 81. Engine No. 81 came in at 9.45 from South. The goods train from Chriiitchurch came ia at 10 a.m.; the slow, the passenger train, from Ohristchurch at 10.25 ; and the passenger train from Christchurch at 10.35; the express comes in at 10.45 a.m. from Ohriatchurch. Five trains come in from 9.45 a.m. to 10.45 a.m., two goods and three passengers. A good deal of shunting has to be done in consequence of this. Aocnsed ia the only recognised assistant shunter at the station, but other men assist. An engine has been off the points since, but it was quite another thing. Bell has since been dismissed. George Shann, sworn, said—l am a shunter at Ashburton. I was employed in that capacity last March. Defendant wa» employed on the railway at that time. I remember the express train coming in that day. Bell had to assist when the express came in by keeping a pair of points with his hands. Before the express came in he had to take an engine from the shed to the north end of the yard. After the engine had crotssd the points should have been olosed to the main line. Accused should have locked the points with a key, but did not do so ; he had the key. The express came in from Christohuroh, and the point* not being olosed it ran off the main line to the goods train. It was from ten to fifteen minutes from hie putting the engine in to the express coming. That was plenty of time to do all that was necessary. There were passengers by the expreaa, who were in daDger in consequence of the points having been unlocked. Bell appeared to know his duties whilst with mc. I was at the station when the express ran off. By the Bench—lt was accused's regular duty to attend to these points at the t;mj mentioned. James Allan sworn, said— I am lampman at Ashburton. I also attend the signal post. Bell had to give mc a signal when the road was clear. He did so on the more ing in question. When the express train was coming, I lowered the arm of the signal post, when Bell gave mc the usual signal that all was right. The express turned off at the points, instead of coming along the line. Bell was seven or eight chains oS then. Benjamia Terdon, sworn, said—l was driving the express engine on the morning of the 11th March. The points at Aahburton were open, and the consequence was the train, instead of running up to the platform, went into the siding where the goods train was (standing. The train I was driving was a passenger one. That morning the semaphore was lowered befora I called on them. That was to tell mc the road was clear. I saw Bell that morning. He was standing near the platform. The duty of a shunter is to lock all points. Riohard Ashton, sworn, said—l am an engine-driver. On the morning of the 11th March, I was driving the goods train. Bell shucted the goods train on to the siding that morning. Bell should have closed the points after the goods train had passed and looked them. Bell did not lock the points, and the result was a collision, attended with great danger. Bell was two years at Lyttelton as brakesman and assistant shunter. Damage was done to the engines and carriages and trucks. I was ten yards from the points when the collision took place. I never noticed how the points were. This concluded the evidence, and Mr Branson then addressed the Benoh, contending at great leDgth that without malicious intention was proved, the prisoner should be discharged. He also called to the notice of the Bench that Bell had already suffered severely, having been dismissed from the railway and afterwards imprisoned for six days. The Bench adjourned to consider the case, and on resuming their seats delivered judgment. They found accused guilty of culpable negligence, but thought the case would be met by inflicting a nominal penalty of £1, as acensed had been rather hardly treated by being imprisoned for six days on a charge whioh had been withdrawn at the last moment. Mr Benjamin Verdon, driver of the express at the time of the accident, asked the Bench if any blame attached to him. The Benoh replied that they could not see that he had been in any way culpable. The railway authorities were desirous to express that they had nothing to do with the prosecution, which had been instituted entirely by the police. Ikcbhdiabism. —George Hamilton, on remand, was accused of this offence. Tbe evidence of the witnesses examined at the inquest, was read over and confirmed by them. On the prisoner being asked if he had anything to say, he replied in the negative. He was then fully committed to take his trial at the next session of the Supreme Court at Christchurch. Bail was allowed, prisoner in £300, and two sureties of £150 each. Fbidat, Apbh. 18. Messrs Le-Grand Campbell, E.M., and Joseph Beswick, J.P.] . Shut Cattlb, &o. — J. F. Butler, for allowing two cows to stray, was fined 6s. Obuxlty to A Hobsb. —Samuel Gibson, accused of having on the 11th March last, cruelly ill-treated a horse by cutting and wounding it with some sharp instrument was dismissed. On leaving the Court Gibson was arrested again by the police. Mr Purnell, who again appeared for prisoner, stated that there were no sworn informations against defendant. The Bench dismissed the charge, but the police again arrested him on a warrant prepared in Court. The case was again dismissed, and a third time Gibson was again arrested only to be discharged a third tune, on the understanding that (he police would lay a fresh information. Plachtg Stohkb os ths Baixwat.— Three children, named W. H. Bennison and Bobert and Caroline Pullinger, aged respectively eight, seven, and four years, were charged with this offence, which they admitted. It will be remembered that these children placed some stones on the railway line at Tinwald, and that a Mr Smith removed the stones. The Bench dismissed the case in consequence of the tender age of tbe children, but in doing m> cautioned both (he

children and their parents, pointing out the terrible consequences that might have ensued. Crra. OaSM.—Carratheri t MeOutcheon, claim £45 ; Mr Purnell for plaintiff; judgment for plaintiff b/defaulfc. - B. Bobinson v J. Moran, claim «48 5s 8d f judgment *y default for amount claimed end ooste. Keetly Bros, v Black, claim 15s 6d t judgment &* defendant. Sims v J. Jane*, eMm £12 & 91; judgment for amount claimed. Same r B. Beymour, claim £2 5s ; judgment by default for amount claimed. Bame v McMillan, claim 6s 6d ; judgment for defendant, amount having been paid to collector. Fisher v Professor Soott, claim £1 ASa for billsticking; Mr ;Harria for plaintiff; judgment for amount claimed, and immediate execution