CHRISTCHURCH.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9606, 22 December 1896, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Monday, December 21. (Before E. Curry. J. M. Douglass, and C. T. Dudley, Esqs., J. l >? s.) Drukkb.vxkss—Two first were convicted aud discharged, and one was fined 5s or suffer the usual alternative of imprisonment. Resistance and Druxkexxess — >Ed. Bates, for whom Mr Donnelly appeared, was charged with drunkenness on the 13th December, resisting Constable Andrew in the execution of his duty, and damaging hi 3 shako value 11s 6d. Accused pleaded guilty to the drunkenness, and Mr Donnelly said his client would admit the resistance and damage, for which he was willing to pay. The resistance was not wilful or deliberate. Accused was fined 5s for drunkenness, 5s for resistance, aud ordered to pay the damage done with 4s costs ; in default of payment to suffer the usual alternative. Alleged Larceky. — Alex. McDonald, nine years of age, was charged with having, on 16* th December, stolen 6s worth of goods belonging to Mrs Aldersley, Richmond. The boy said he did not do it. Mrs McDonald said if her son did it she wanted him punished, if not she wanted him let off. Mrs Aldersley stated that, during her absence on Anniversary Day, her shop of drapery and fancy goods was entered, and some pocketbooks, penknives, pencils, and elastic bands, &c, taken. Their value wonld be about 6s or 7s. Constable Flewellyn deposed that he got the accused aud his little brother at the East Christchurch school, and on them were transfers and elastic bands. The little boy said that two other boys did it, who were named. These satisfactorily proved their absence from Richmond on the day. Two other boys were then named, and these proved to be at Simmer. Witness arrested accused on the Saturday, and in the presence of Detective Marsack the accused admitted that he did it. Detective Marsack corroborated this statement. Mrs McDonald said her boys went away fishing on Auniversarj' Day, and when they came home had some elastic bauds and toinsfers, which they said had been given them by two boys who used to live near them. The Bench said there was no doubt the boys stole the thing 3. The accused was too young to be punished. He would be convicted, and the punishment left to the mother. The accused »vas then charged with having on 6th December, stolen 10s belonging to Walter Cotterill, storekeeper, Stanmore road. The prosecutor stated how his store had apparently been entered, and that 10s or 12s cash had been taken. Constable Flewellyn stated that while investigating the first case the accused told him about Cotterill's store, and how it had been entered, and that two other boys went into the place, and the accused afterwards admitted to himself and Detective Marsack that he and his little brother did it. He took 103, which he hid near the river, and gradually 3pent it in lollies and so on. The boy also admitted, in the presence of his mother, that lie did it and she oifered to pay the money to keep the case out of Court. Detective Marsack gave corroborative evidence. Mrs McDonald said the boys were not out of the house at the time when the store was broken into. She asked that the little boy should bo heard. The little brother said he was present when another boy broke the Avindow and went in. He denied that his brother was there or that' he got any money, or planted any, or found any. The Bsneh decided that the accused was too young for punishment, and that the mother must make restitution. Mrs McDonald suid she Avould undertake to do nothing. She wanted to know why her boy's character should be stained for something he did not do, and persisted in her assertion that he was at home on the 6th. The Bench explained the case carefully to Mrs McDonald, ordered her to look well after her boys in the future, and then convicted and dismissed the accused. Miscellaneous. —Hedley V. Patrick was fined 10s and costs for riding a. bicycle on the Riccarton road footpath. Charges against Arthur Wright (a boy), for whom Mr Deacon .appeared, James and Thomas Jack, junrs. (boys), Thos. Jack, Lewis Hoft, and Chas. Schultz, of trespassing on the railway between Pigeon lane aud Addington station, Avere dismissed after the defendants were catitioned, some of thesj explaining that the-' practice had been permitted for years. ] Charges against Wm. Gemmell, Alfred Thorn and William Hughes of trespassing on the railway line betAveen Gasworks road and Wilson's road wore also dismissed. The two first named explained that they were walking over the line at a crossing. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M.) Civil Cases.—Judgments Avenfc for plaintiffs by default in—Aulsebrook v Fredericks, £9 5s 2d ; and Chisnall and Stewart v Rollitt, £118s. Josling v Selfe, claim £6 10s 2d on judgment summons. Mr Bruges appeared for the creditor. The ability of the debtor to pay was not proved, and no order was made. Pratt v Bradbury and Bradbury v Pratt were adjourned till January 18th.