MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 10866, 16 January 1901, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

DRUNKENNESS. Peter Thompson, who was found drunk on the East Belt on Monday, was fined 10s by Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., yesterday. Alexander Hood, who was found drunk in Cashel street, was also fined 10s, in default 48 hours. Mary McKegney was convicted and discharged on condition that she went to the Samaritan Home. A SERIOUS CHARGE. A man named James James, a gardener residing at Lyttelton, appeared before the Magistrate yestsrday upon a charge of committing an illegal offence upon a boy at Lyttelton on January 2nd. Sub-Inspector Black asked for a remand. Mr Cassidy, who appeared for the accused, applied for bail. His Worship, however, refused bail, and adjourned the case for a week. BREACH OF PROHIBITION ORDER. An elderly man named James v Gibb pleaded "Guilty" to a charge of entering the Star Hotel on December 22nd during the currency of a prohibition order against him. He was*fined £1 and co^ts. A prohibition order was granted against Alexander Hood. AFTER TWENTY-NINE YEARS. Julia Smith, after twenty-nine years of wedlock, asked that her husband, John Thomas Smith, should be made to support her. Defendant said that he was unable to earn his own iivinfj. and could not support his wife, who had property of her own. and was much better off than himself. The case was dismissed. HE COULD LOOK AFTER HIMSELF. Sarah Jane Wilding wanted her husband to support her. She stated that she had a large family, and a large rent, with nothing to live on. Her husband had recently sold the clock, and even the bed that the children were lying in, so that he might get drink. He staggered into the Court to speak for himself. "Is this man drunk now?" was Mr Bishop's first question. The man hiccupped out, ''I may be drunk, but I can always look after myself." and was promptly ejected. As it was proved that he could earn 10s a day when sober, he was ordered to "look after" his wife and three children, by handing over a pound a week in future towards their support. SEPARATION ORDERS. A separation order Mas granted to the wife of Samuel John Williamson. The husband was ordered to pay costs, and 20s a week towards her support, and that of two infant children. A separation order was granted between Geor/e Robert and Agnes Fhiertv. Both of them were certain that they could never agree, and, indeed, they fell out the moment they met each ether in Court. His Worship remarked. "Now, then, it's no use quarrelling now. you should have quarrelled before you got married." He granted the

order, the husband to pay 20s a towards his wife's support, and costs. PROHIBITION ORDER. *A prohibition order was issued against Albert Dyer, -to take effect for twelve months, in the Christehurch and surrounding districts. . - - ■ A CRUEL PRACTICE. Alfred Hulston, for ay bom. Mr Williams appeared, was charged by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" witli ill treatment of a. cow. ■Mγ Williams appeared for the defendant, and Mr Cresswill for the prosecution. William Miles, Inspector of the Society, said that he had found tbe animal suffering considerable pain from want of being milked. Th« udder was hard and knotty. RVpointed this out to Mr Hulston, \rlio then relieved the cow of its milk, and evidently gave it great ease in doing so. It was "intended to sell the animal, which had calved on the previous 'Monday. Mr Hulston explained that it liad bein milked on the Wednesday night, ■but not on the Thursday morning. It xwd tlrus been left for about i 8 hours. Mr Hulston's excuse that the cow was suffering from soreness of the udder, seemed to the Inspector to only aggravate the offence of not milking her. John Jarinan. and Thomas Hill gave evidence of the pain which, the animal was suffering, and of the evident relief experienced from milking. Defendant stated that she ■had calved a w-eek before her time. Her teats were very sore, for some reason, and he had intended no cruelty in not having ha- milked. Thomas MeKilhir stated that th? cow's restlessness was true merely to lie-r Laving b»n knocked about earlier in the mornrng by another cow. fth* was being tormented also by the flies. Further evidence for the defence was heard from Robert Tubnian, Kenneth Godley, David Webb, Robert Rutledge, and Frederick Brown. His Worslicp said tuat the whole case turned oil the practice of refraining from milking a cow the night before selling it. The object of this was that the udder might be big. and the animal's- appxtant value- enhanced, :m the eyes of <t possible, buyer. It was a cruel, if a common practice." In this case, no doubt, no wilful harshness had been intended, -and he would injlich only a nominal penalty. Defendant was convicted, and lined os, and costs, £3 2s.

At Lyttelton yesterday William Henry Ba,ker, charged before Mr J. T.. Brice with being drunk while in charge of a horse, wasfined 20s, with the usual alternative.

At Eangiora yesterday the case Mehrtens v Mshrtens, for fencing, was adjourned by Messrs Wardell, S.M., and E. It. Good, J. P. J. Watson, ranger, charged J. Bell with driving from him four cows seized for impounding. Fined 20s and costs 7s. Mrs Henry admitted her horse was at large on the"road for the first time. Fined 5s and costs 7s. MissTvyteherley. who had cashed a valueless cheque, for £16 14s 8d for Richmond Hata Monio. now in Lyttelton Gaol, sued for £14 5s sd. Judgment was given for the plaintiff. Constable Johnston stated a sum of £9 T>2!onging to Momo was in the hands of the Inspector of Police, and he advised Miss Wytcherley to distrain on it. An immediate distress warrant was asked for and granted.