MAGISTERIAL.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9704, 17 April 1897, Page 10

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. '-"HURSDAY, April 15. (Before W. H. Cooper, E. Green, and A. Marshall, Eeqs., J.P.'s.) Drunkenness.—A male first offender was fined sa, or twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Mary Bell, alias Burnip, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, and Christina Lawson to fourteen days. Miscß-LANEo.s. — F. Brennecker, for driving a vehicle without lights, was fined 5a and costs. Ed. W. Slaney, for alighting from a train while in motion, was, after his own explanation, convicted of the offence and discharged. Jas. Glen (for whom Mr •Oassidy appeared), for driving over the Sydenham railway crossing when an engine was approaching and was within half a mile, was fined 5s and costs. Stealing Apples.—Three boys pleaded M-rilty to having, on April Ist, stolen 2s •■"irtri of apples from the orchard of J. ftarkness, Riccarton. The prosecutor said c was greatly troubled by boys removing ■B&U. from his orchard, and to protect him- __*• had this year to gather the fruit unripe. He did not wish the boys severely punished or sent to gaol, but asked for the protection of the Court against further depredations. The Bench inflicted a fine of 12s each without costs, warning the accused that should the offence be repeated the punishment would not be so light. Assault.—Harry Moor was charged with having, on March 9th, at Addington, assaulted Frank Partridge. The defendant, for whom Mr Kippenberger appeared, admitted tlie assault under provocation. Mr Byrne appeared for the prosecution. After heariug the evidence, the Bench inflicted a fine of 10s and costs.

Stealing a Bicycle.—William Gear was charged with having, on March 29th, at Christchurch, stolen a bicycle value £12, the property of R. Kent. Mr Kippenberger, who appeared for the accused, said he had an application to make which might appear extraordinary, but thought it was justified under the cimimstan.es. "the young man had been employed at P*Ji_aS__ng'fi, be also belonged to Hie Fire Brigctta, and had hired the bicycle from Mr Kent for 10s a week, lie waa receiving a small wage, got hard up and wanting to go to his parents on the West Coast sold the bicycle to Mr Suckling'son for £5. Accused was arrested at the Coast. His mother had paid Mr Suckling back his money, Mr Kent had got back his bicycle, so that every reparation had been made. Under the circumstances, the act.being the first one of dishonesty, and the young man having hitherto borne an excellent character he (Mr Kippenberger) thought that at any rate he might be given advantage of the Probation Act, if the Bench could not see its way to p-fiiiit tlie case to be withdrawn, which he asked might be done. The Beach, after consideration, decided to hear the evidence, which was given for the prosecution by Geo. Milne (business manager for Mr R. Kent), Mortimer Suckling (who stated that his father was willing to take Gear on again) and Detective .Mai-sack. fThoB. Treloar gaye evidence for the defence as to the hitherto good character of the accused. Mr Kippenberger renewed his application and suggested as an alternative, in the event of this being refused, that the case should be treated summarily, the evidence having shown that the bicycle at the time of sale was only worth £5. The Bench decided to commit the accused for trial, bail being allowed, himself in the sum of £50 and two sureties each of £25 or one surety of £50. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., S.M.) Civil Cases.-—ln Eereday v Morten, in which confession had been made, and certain costs allowed, the judgment was amended by allowing the plaintiff's solicitor £6 3s instead of £3 3s for costs appearing on the former record. Mr Joynt for the plaintiff, Mr Hunt for the defendant. Hayward and Son, v Zouch, claim £10 for rent, and plaintiffs asked for possession of premises. Mr Scott for plaintiffs, Mr Beattie for defendant, who was ordered to pay £7 18s, with costs, and give up possession in seven days. Judgment went for plaintiffs by default, with costs, in Ballam v Denehy, £21; and Leslie v Chang Yung, £3 14s lOd. Moss v Manchester Insurance Company, Booth, Macdonald and Co. v Crutchley, Bailey and Laugdown v Phcenix Assurance Company, and Bowen v Rowan were adjourned till April 29th.