CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8588, 15 September 1893, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Thursday, September 14. (Before J. P. Jameson, E. Skog, and J. C 1 Sopp, Esqrs., J.P.'s.) Alleged Assault and Robbery.— Edward Reynolds, alias Edmund Reynolds, alias William Campbell and William Thomas (on remand), were charged wilh having, on September sth, assaulted and robbed Sydney Claxon of one gold chain and locket valued £8, one silver watch valued 255, and one pocket book valued Is. Mr Hoban appeared for the accused, Inspector Broham prosecuting. The evidence of Thos. Gaffney taken yesterday went to show tbat the two accused and Claxon were drinking together in the New Zealander Hotel at 11 o'clock on the sth inst. All went out of the hotel together, Claxon going towards town, while the accused remained talking in front of the building. Subsequently the informant returned with Constable Ramsay in a bad condition and minus a gold watch chain which he had been wearing on leaving the hotel. Sidney Claxon, a seaman, deposed to going to the New Zealander Hotel on the sth inst., shortly before eleven o'clock at night. Both the accused were standing in a passage, and witness " shouted" for them. They then went out, and subsequently witness followed them. After walking along St. Asaph street for some distance he was overtaken by the accused, who threw witness down and took his watch chain, purse and locket. This took place about three chains from the hotel, but being in a muddled condition witness did not offer any resistance nor call for help. Shortly afterwards met Constable Ramsay and informed him of the occurrence. Next day saw the accused at the Police Station, and had no difficulty in distinguishing them from a number of other men. Also saw them yesterday- at the Police Station when they offered to give witness back his property if the charge was withdrawn. To Mr Hoban—Started drinking in the morning and continued doing so all day. Was hardly in a fit state to take care of himself at the time of the robbery. The men were hiding behind a fence lying in wait, and sprang out on witness coming along. Constable Ramsay remembered seeing informant at the corner of the New Zealander Hotel at 11.30 p.m. on the night of the assault. He was in a muddled condition, but was sober. His clothes were covered with mud, and witness took him into the hotel, where he complained of being robbed. Got a description of the men who attacked the informant and started looking for them. Detective O'Connor deposed to seeing the accused on the night of the sth, and charged them with robbing Claxon. Thomas said he knew nothing about it, and Reynolds said he had nothing to do with watches and chains; he had given the game np. Claxon picked the two accused out from nine other men, without hesitation, at the station. Heard the informant asking the accused where his property was while in the Police Station this morjung, and Reynolds answered

that he would get it back again. The accused were then committed for trial. A charge against Ctaxon for appearing in the witness box on Wednesday morning while under the influence of drink was withdrawn. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Neglected Child.—Phillip Wallburton, aged 12, whose father was recently sent to gaol on a charge of larceny, was brought before the Court as being a neglected child. He had no home and wandered about the streets at night. The Bench ordered the boy to be sent to Burnham till he was fifteen years of age. Family Tkocblks.— George Brooke3 was charged with deserting his five children. The case hail been adjourned* for a week to allow the parties to come to some amicable arrangement if possible. The defendant now expressed his willingness to return to his wife and support his children. Mrs Brookes, however, declined to live with her husband, and the Magistrate refused to make an order. Civil Casks. —Judgment for plaintiffs was given by default, with cost 3, in the following cases:—John Neill v Otene fcLuku Karaitiana, claim £15; Whitccmbe and Tombs v R. E. Wyldie, claim £2 8s 9d; Berry and Co. v W. Eddy, claim £4 2a 9d; Trade Auxiliary Company v J. Dippenheim, claim £11 12s. R. Wood vi Mclutosh, claim £10, and A. A. Gledbill v P. McGill, claim 18a 6d, were adjourned* till September 21st. Edwards, Bennett and Co. v Turner and Colbran, claim £39 9a 6d, was adjourned till September 20th, and H. B. Hamlin v H. Hammond, claim £14 8s 6d, judgment summons, till September 28th. Wm. Bennett v Ebboru, claim £15 3s, for damages and expenses incurred through defendant's trap colliding with plaintiffs. Mr Deacon appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Izard for defendant. The brief facts of the case were that on or about the evening of the 10th of June last, tbe plaintiff wae driving along the Drain road to Tai Tapu, and pulled up on seeing an engine in front of him. The defendant's trap was following plaintiffs, and the defendant did not pull up or draw out sufficiently to clear the plaintiff's vehicle, and a collision took place. Plaintiff and his son were thrown out, and the former received injuries which confined him to his bed for a fortnight. He theretore claimed £213s 6d for repairs to his trap, £210s medical expenses, and £10 damages. The 5 defence was that the plaintiff was only a few yards in front of defendant wheu he pulled up without warning. The defendant had not tune to pull up, but did his best to avoid a collision by drawiDg to one side. His Worship held that the driver of the following trap was always responsible. The road was a narrow one with a drain on either side, and the plaintiff was justified in pulling up when he saw the traction engine in front of him. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £5 16a.