MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1837, 12 January 1880, Page 3

MAGISTRATES’ COURTS.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Januaby 12,

[[Before G. L. Mellisb, Esq, RM] Dkckk and Disoedeedy. —Two inebriates wore fiued 10s and 20s respectively. Lunacy. Henry F. Allen and Jane Hooper, alias Ritchey, charged with lunacy through drink, were remanded for medical treatment.

Riot and Assault. William Conolly, alias Molloy, was charged on warrant with riot and assault Mr Perceval appeared on hi* behalf. Sergeant Morioe applied that the case might be remanded for the production of witnesses. Mr Perceval said he was prepared to go on with the case, and could produce nine or ten witnesses to prove that the prisoner did not come on the scene until late in the day, and that he behaved himself properly. Thomas Parmer, a farmer on the Lincoln road, swore that he saw the prisoner near Barrett’s Hotel with a pick handle in his hand, on the morning of Boxing Day. By Mr Perceval —Was certain of the identity of the prisoner, by his carrying the pick handle in his left hand. Phillip Bull said he crossed the Junction Hotel with bis omnibus on Boxing Day morning. He saw the prisoner amongst other men, and he struck a man over the head with a stick. By Mr Perceval—Would swear ho saw a man knocked down by the prisoner. He thought the man was killed, as the blood gushed down his face. The prisoner delivered the blow with his lefl hand. His Worship decided to remand the prisoner until Wednesday next, bail being allowed in one surety of £SO and the accused in the same sum. Causing an Obstruction. —H. P. Henriokson was summoned for causing an obstruction by allowing a horse to graze in Third street, Sydenham. He was fined ss, and costs 7s.

Wandering Cattle, &c. —W. R. Green and John Dowry were each fined ss, and costs 7s, for this offence. Assault. —Frederick Schmidt was summoned for assaulting John Murphy, by throwing water over him. Mr Slater for the complainant. The complainant, a boy employed in Atkinson’s Foundry, stated that on the 31st ult. he was sent on an errand, and the defendant, who had concealed himself behind a doorway, threw gome water over him. The defendant did not deny throwing the water, but said the boys in each shop were in the habit of doing so, and this particular act was onlj one of retaliation. Mr Atkinson, the boy’s employer, corroborated his statement, and said he- wished to put a stop to the practice of throwing stores and water between the boys employed in the two shops. The defendant was one of the foremost in the practice, and Mr Jewett, his master, when complained to, said he had no power to stop the nuisance. He had only instigated the complainant to lay the information to put an end to the nuisance complained of. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the case, £1 Bs, and warned for the future.

Eitobtino Money.—Daniel Burns and bis wife Julia Burns were charged with having accused Alice Oamfleld of larceny from a dwelling house of a ten pound note, with a view of extorting money. Mr Oowlishaw appeared for the prosecution. Walter Bath Oamfield, schoolmaster at Sumner, stated that the defendants came to his house last Thursday evening and accused Mrs Camfield of stealing a £lO pound note. Mr Burns said if the money was given up, no hirg should be said about the matter. Witness said Mrs Oamfield had not stolen the money. Mrs Burns said not a word would be breathed about it, and Mr Burns repeated her words. Witness asked his wife how all this occurred, and she said she never took the money, or words to that effect. Witness said the charge was impossible, Mrs Oamfield would never do such a thing. Mrs Burns kept repeating “She has got it,” Witness told them he would question his wife. Mr Burns said “ If I do not have the money to-morrow morning, I will give it to the police, or give her in charge, or words to that effect. They then left. A short time afterwards witness went to the house of Daniel Burns. Ho was present, and also his wife and a little girl. Witness said Mrs Oamfield says she never took the money. Mrs Burns said they had missed a £lO note and two £1 notes. Asked Mrs Burns where she kept her cash-box, and she replied in a box in her bedroom. Mr Burns repeated his former offer that if the money was given up no steps would be taken. Witness asked how it occurred. Mrs Burns said she went outside her house to see some one to the coach, and that she heard Mrs Oamfield in her bedroom. Mrs Burns, Mrs Oamfield, and two other women had been sitting together in the house. It was the two females who had gone. Mrs Burns told witness that when she saw Mrs Oamfield in her bedroom she asked her what she was doing, and she made some excuse. Some beer was sent for, which Mrs Burns and Mrs Carafield drunk. Daniel Burns came to witness’s house the next morning between six and seven o’clock and asked if the money was going to be given up. He said he would take no further steps if it was given up. Witness replied, Mrs Oamfield had not taken the money, and had passed a very bad night, through mental distress. Burns said, “ My God, the woman has got it; I will give her in charge in an hour, and she will get twelve months for it.” In consequence of something he had heard, witness went to Mrs Burns, and she said the money had better have been given up. Witness asked her then how much she missed * She replied, £lO. Witness said, “ I thought you said £l2 yesterday.” Mrs Burns said the other two pounds had been made right. On this occasion Mrs Burns said she kept the box in which her money was in her bed She said she did not accuse Mrs Oamfield of the theft at the time, because she was so struck that she did not know what to do. Alice Oamfield, the wife of the last witness, being sworn, corroborated the evidence given by him. In answer to a question from the female defendant, the witness admitted half a gallon of beer had been sent and drank previous to the quart of beer, which was drunk by complainant and the female defendant. For the defence, Mary Ann Smith, wife of John Smith, of Hanson’s road, Opawa, was called. She stated that she was in the house of the defendants on Thursday last. Mrs Dale was there and another lady. They had some lunch. Afterwards Mrs Oamfield came in and sent for some boor. Witness left before she did, leaving Mrs Burns and Mrs Oamfield in the house. Mrs Burns did not accompany her outside when she left by the coach. Sarah Dale, wife of Thomas Dale, gardener, residing in the Ferry road, corroborated the testimony of the last witness as to her lunching in the house of the defendants on Thursday last. Mrs Oamfield was very talkative, but witness could not say whether she i was drunk or sober. When she left she said good-bye to Mrs Burns at the gate, outside the house. Mrs Burns came out of i the house, but Mrs Oamfield remained in. > Witness did not leave the house at the aaiaa I time as the last witness, Mary Ana Smita,

Mary Ann Smith, recalled —Afier leaving Mrs Burns’ I went to the hotel with Mrs Dale, who returned to the house of Mrs Burns for some things which she had left there. The next witness was a little girl named Catherine Fuse, daughter of Joseph Fuss, of Colombo street south. In answer to the female defendant, she said that on the day in question she saw the complainant, Mrs Camfit Id, in Mrs Burns’ bedroom. She saw her on tne bed, and she took something from beneath the pillow, and concealed it in her stocking. She heard Mrs Burns ask the complainant what she was doing there, and she replied " Oh, nothisg.” Mrs Camfield then went away. Mrs Camfield sent for a quart of beer a r ter witness saw her in the bedroom. Witness went, at the request of Mrs Camfield, for the first lot of beer, Mrs Bums giving her the money for it. When the two women went away the coach was by the hotel. Mrs Camfield did not see them off. Witness had had the night before the £lO note alleged to have been stolen, in his hands. There were some cheques and sovereigns also in the cash-box. She was living with Mrs Burns, who showed her the money the previous evening. Mr Oowliehaw said the case had been brought under the 47th clause of the Lsrceny Act, which provided that any parson falsely accusing another of an infamous off -nee for the purpose of extorting money rendered themselves liable to imprisonment In this case it was the duty of the defendants, if they had been robbed, to have prosecuted the person and not have endeavoured to compound the felony for a pecuniary consideration. The only evidence to the point was that of the last witness, who had given her evidence rather too well. Moreover, it was immaterial whether the person so accused was innocent or guilty of the offence imputed to them. His Worship said that in this case, with perhaps a reasonable probability of the offence having been committed, it could scarcely come within the meaning of the Act under which the information bad been laid, as if the £lO had been stolen, no extortion was apparent, as no more money had been demanded than what had been taken, unless indeed tho fact of demanding £lO could he considered in the light of extortion. Tho act he opined was intended to prevent extortion. Mr Cowlishaw said there was no wish to sand the defendants to trial ; the proceedings had only been brought to enable Mrs Camfield to rehabilitate her character, and state on oath that she had not taken the money. Eventually his Worship determined to allow the matter to stand over that he might taka time to consider what course he should adopt, the defendants entering into their own recognizances to appear the next day.

LYTTELTON. Monday, January 12. Drunkenness. William Warner, for being drunk on Sunday was fined 10s or fortyeight hours’ imprisonment. Garden Robbing —William Joseph Harkiss, nine years of age, was charged with stealing fid, value of apples the property of James Lewin at 9 a.rn. on Sunday. Prosecutor lives in Dampier’s Bay, and the boy took the apples from the garden. The day before a tree of ripe plums was cleared of fruit that was why the prosecutor was on the look out. The garden was known as Mr Hamilton’s. The Bench considering the boy’s age admonished him and let him go. Stowaway. —Benjamin Sugden was charged with stowing away on board the steamer Huia from Wellington to Lyttelton. Captain Wills said the offence was so frequently committed, he felt bound to prosecute, still he didn’t wish to press the case, but wanted the impression removed that persons stowing away on board the Huia could do so with impunity. Prisoner said he had been knocking about Wellington for three days without food, and unable to obtain work. Ordered to pay the passage-money (30s), or seven day’s imprisonment. Lunacy from Deink. —James Dowell, on remand from Christchurch, having recovered, was discharged.