MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7263, 24 January 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHXJBCH. WEDNESDAY, Janttabt 23. (Before F. Guinness and J. Gapes, Esqrs., J.P.'s.l DRrjNKENNEss.—For this offence Patrick Rigan was fined 10s, or, in default, the usual alternative. __sc__aneous.—Matthew Goodgerand Edward Pitt, for plying as cabmen for hire without being licensed, were fined each 10s with costs.-_. Field, for allowing a horse to wander in Selwyn street, Spreydon, was fined 5s with cost——Andrew Ritchie, for allowing offensive manner to flow into a side-channel in Colombo street, was ordered to pay the costs of the case.—A charge against W. Stonyer, for allowing a bull to wander at large in New Brighton on January 2nd, was adjourned, for further evidence, until January 30th. Ai_____. Larceny.—John McCallum, a prisoner in Lyttelton Gaol under sentence for stealing an accordeon, was brought up and charged with stealing, in August, 1887, a cairngorm stone, set in gold, valued at £12 12s, the property of William Wilson. On the application of the police the value of the article was fixed at £4, in order to give the Court summary jurisdiction. The accused then pleaded guilty. He was also charged with stealing a set of mathematical instruments and a pair of scales, valued together at £1 17s. He pleaded not guilty. H. M. Lund, watchmaker, stated that the accused was also a watchmaker, and was in the habit of coming into his shop. On December 14th, he (prosecutor) missed the articles abovename— A day or two afterwards, he saw them at the Melbourne Restaurant. Arthur Evans, carpenter, deposed that on December 14th he was working in Mr Lund's shop. Mr Lund was out. The prisoner too— the things from under the counter, saying they belonged to him, and went away. On prosecutors return witness told him what had happened. James Talbot, restaurant-keeper, stated that on the evening of December 14th the prisoner left with him the articles produced, saying he would call for them. He never came for them, and witness handed them to the police. The prisoner, in defence, said that he was mixed up in business transactions with the prosecutor, and took the articles with an intention of conveying them to him. This was the case. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on each charge, twelve months in all, to take effect at the expiration of his current sentence.