RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5531, 6 November 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES COURT.

Wednesday, November, 5. (Before H. Eyre Kenny, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Thomas O'Brien, who had been bailed out, and appeared in the box with symptoms of having renewed his drink-, ing bout, was fined 5s and costs. STEALING FLOWEKS. Two little boys, named George and Albert Wrightson, were charged with stealing some roses from the garden of William Lucas in Carlyle-street. Mr Lascelles appeared for the defence, and stated it was admitted that George Wrightson had taken a single rose, but . he had been led into the mischief by older boys. Mr Lucas stated that he valued the roses at 2s. Mrs Lucas deposed that on the evening of the 30th of October she heard the gate slammed to with great noise and on going out saw two boys crouching down outside the gate. They seemed to be a good deal bigger than the defendants. Witness then missed the roses, which she had seen about ten minutes before on the tree. Ellen Beehan, a girl about 13 years of age, stated that on the evening in question she saw the defendants at Mrs Lucas's gate with some roses, which they said they had taken from Lucas's. Witness also saw James Cook at that time, but he had no | flowers then. Sergeant O'Malley here stated that it had just been ascertained thab other boys were implicated, among whom was Henry Cook, but as his Worship thought it hardly fair that they should give evidence land be prosecuted afterwards, Sergeant O'Malley said no information would be laid against the others. Henry Cook, 11 years' of - r age, : ' said he had been induced to enter Lucas's garden by the Wright sons. They all took some flowers. James Holder was with them, and took some too. The Wrightsons went into the gardens first. In answer to an enquiry, it was stated that George Wrightson was eight years of age and his brother Albert six. His Worship remarked that the younger one was not criminally liable, and so could not be prosecuted. George Wrightson said Cook had asked him to go into the garden, and he did so, but took only one rose. Mr Lascelles considered that the ends of justice would have been better served if Mr Lucas had gone to Mr Wrightson and got him to give the boys a good whipping. His Worship said he would let George Wrightson off becausejhe thought there were extenuating circumstances in his case. Addressing Cook, his Worship said he had only got off by an accident, the police having only just found out that he was implicated in the transaction. It was perfect nonsense for Cook to say that he had been led into the mischief by such small boys as the defendants. The defendants we're then discharged. INSULTING LANGUAGE. In the case of Lascelles v Mitchell, Mr Lascelles said it was an information for using improper language. Mr Mitchell had written an apology, and he (Mr Lascelles) had agreed to withdraw the case on condition of the costs being paid. Mr Mitchell had, however, foolishly left the matter in the hands of a friend, and the agreement had only been partly complied with. He would therefore ask for a week's adjournment to see if the matter would be settled. The application was granted.