RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XII, Issue 735, 23 November 1859, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

L"£TTELTON—SATURDAY, NOV. 19.

(Before "W. Donald, R. Latter, & C. Ward, Esqrs.)

Thomas Casey was .brought up on a charge preferred by J. W. Hamilton, Esq., J,P., under the Police Ordinance of this province, of having on the previous day (Friday) used abusive and insulting language towards the informant, in a public place near the White Hart Hotel, Christchuroh.

Mr. Hamilton's evidence was to the effect that when he was about leaving Christchurch on Friday afternoon in Wheeler and Nurse's conveyance, he saw accused in a drunken state sitting in Dufty's carfc. A lady was going to get in the same carfc, and Casey was making use of obscene language. Mr. Hamilton asked the driver of the carfc whether he was going to take that drunken man in the same cart with the lady, and understood the reply to be in the affirmative. After the lady got in, Casey shifted his position in the carfc, and shouted to informant, making use of grossly insulting, abusive and indecent language.

Another witness to the proceedings corroborated the above statement and the charge was not denied by the accused. Mr. Hamilton stated that he had brought this case before the bench at a good deal of trouble to himself, in order to check the nuisance, permitted by some proprietors of public conveyances, of men drunk and disorderly being taken in to' travel in the same vehicle with other passengers, and even with ladies.

The Magistrates thanked Mr. Hamilton for having taken the steps he did in the matter, and fined the accused 40s.

Another charge was brought against the prisoner by the police,;of having been drunk on the same (Friday) evening,, in Lytfcelton. The .charge was substantiated and not denied by the prisoner. This was the third-conviction within six months for the same offence, and, as prescribed, by; law, the heavy penalty was inflicted of £5 fine^aiM a fortnight's imprisonment; and in default of ipaymenfc of the fine, a further term of imprisonment of one month! ; • .......

On Monday the list contained very few cases, all of a civil nature and of the most simple character.

Cheistchukch.—Satttbday, Nov. 19,1859. (Before John Hall, Esq., E.M.)

BEGINA BY MATTHEW LEE JOYCE V. FJJANCES

THIEZA WILLIS. —LABCENY.

The prisoner, a girl about 20 years of age and of outward respectability, was brought up in custody. This case had been partly heard on a previous day, but was remanded for further hearing before Mr. Hall. The charge was for stealing a brooch, au Albert chain, and several articles of wearing apparel. Charlotte Joyce deposed as follows: —I am the wife of the plaintiff and reside at Riccarton. About three months ago accused entered our service and remained with us nine weeks, when I gave her notice to quit. During her stay with us I had no reason to suspect that she took any of our property. On Saturday last Mrs. Craddock, residing in St. Asaph Street, sent for me, saying she wished to see me particularly. On my going to her she showed me some articles which I recognised as belonging to me. [The articles which were the subject of the charge, viz., a child's pinafore, a child's frock, an Albert chain, a cameo brooch, and a petticoat.were here identified by the witness.] The last time I remember seeing the cameo brooch and chain, was. about the end of July. I have not seen them, since till they were produced to me by the policeman who found them in Mrs. Craddock's house.

By the Court. —I did not send any of these things to Mrs. Craddock's to be washed at anytime. The value of the brooch I take to be 255. The pinafore 45., the frock 45., the chain 55., the petticoat 2s. I never gave any of these articles" to the prisoner, nor had she any authority to take them into her possession.

P. C. Eldridge being sworn, said:—- In obedience to a warrant, I went to the house of Mrs. Craddock on Mondayafternoon last, and asked if prisoner had any property there P ifeCrs. Craddock showed me a box which was locked; on moving some things off the box I found the frock and pinafore I now produce, which last witness, who was with me, identified as belonging to her. On opening the box I found another small box within it, in which I found the chain I now produce, which was also identified by last witness. The cameo brooch now produced attached to a ribbon was lying in the large box and was identified by last witness as hers. I apprehended prisoner in Lyttelton on Tuesday last, and brought her to Christchurch, • and on being searched at the station the petticoat was found on her.

Susannah Craddock deposed as follows.—l am a laundress and live in St. Asaph- street, Christchurch. I know the prisoner. About four weeks ago she asked me to take care of her box when it came, to which I consented. On last Wednesday she came to me again, to take her things away, as she said she was going to be married; she staid all night and left me on the Thursday morning. On the Saturday I informed Mrs. Joyce's brother of what had occurred at my house with the prisoner, and that she had given me a little frock and pinafore. The things now shown to me are the ones prisoner gave me. The policeman came to my house with a search warrant on Monday last. The box the policeman opened was the property of the prisoner, and I was present when he opened it to search it. By the Court. I never had these things now produced given to.me by Mrs. Joyce at any time for the purpose of washing or ironing them. I never saw them till the prisoner brought them to my house.

The prisoner, after having the usual caution read to her as to making a statement, said as follows : I took the things, and gave the pinafore and frock

to'jMrs. Craddoolc. I coiifcsa I utol Mrs. Joyce, and am very Borry for it. Mr. Hall said if tho priaonoi- had not confessed it would have, been his ditty to send the case lor trial, bui; ho would now deal -summarily with tho ensu: and would send her to Lyttelton guol lor 3 mouths with hard labor.

;o them from

REQINA BY POLICE V. FRANOJ3S THIKZA WILLIS,

LARCENY,

This was a charge against the same person and had been partially heard, but like- tho former charge was remanded for hearing bofore Mr. Hall. The chargo was for stealing a Garnet necklace, valued at £1, the proporty of Mrs. Craddock of St. Asaph Street, Chriatoliurch. P. C. Eldridgo deposed to having, on information received, searched the prisoner aud found tho nocklace in question round her neck. Susannah Craddock said: —On Wednesday last prisoner came to my house and staid there all night. On Thursday morning I left my house, leaving prisoner in the bedroom, and when I returned home I. went to my box and found it had been disturbed and that,some things were missing, amongst them was a locket. I sent after prisoner and she returned; I accused her of taking the locket, which she denied; she then left me. On Thursday night on making a further search I found I had missed a necklace. I had seen the necklace the Sunday before., The necklace now produced I swear is mine. I identify it by the marks on the clasp. I value it at £1,

The prisoner, after being duly cautioned, stated that she. stole the necklace from Mrs. Craddock and was very sorry for it. The prisoner was ordered by Mr. Hall to be sent to Lyttelton gaol and there kept to hard labour for three months, to commence from the expiration of the three months for which she was this day previously ordered to be committed.

toflßpnntarc.

CATTLE TEESPASS AMENDMENT. To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times.

Sib, —The hearty, clever, pungent, well-delivered punishment which I received last week in the letter of your correspondent (signed R. H. Rhodes) requires your permission to make a few further remarks through your columns on the proposed Amendment of the Cattle Trespass Ordinance. The whole matter narrows itself into the question—ls waste land occupation in the Port Victoria district to be protected at the expense and to the detriment of the freeholder, or is it to take its natural course, and compete with or retire before the march of improvement which year after year is gradually converting the wilds into fields or pasture ? My own case will pretty well illustrate the' subject.—l hold upwards of 400 acres in the neighbourhood of Mr. Rhodes' home station at Purau, and within two miles of Lyttelton. I have done everything in my power effectually to fence in my improved land, but, notwithstanding, during the last four months, I hare been in a state of seige, day and night, beleaguered by old cunning working bullocks, the sappers and miners to a large reserve of,,wilder cattle ready to storm when a breach is effected. Watcli has to be kept a great part'of the niglit,, and damages to be repaired by day. Now, under the presenUaw I have the protection of being entitled summarily to levy a fine of three shillings per head, or send to pound. Under the proposed amendment, the whole onus would be thrown upon the|freeholder of proving, estimating damages, bringhg forward witnesses, and, in fact, entering into a kaw-suit with all its uncertainties upon every,.related act of trespass. He would soon be nibbled $o/death and obliged to give up. The obligation 6! protection would be entirely thrown upon the ; peifeon; who has paid for and is improving the country;

This is the position to which; Mr. Rhodes in a kind, neighbourly, and gentlemanly spirit wishes to drive me. It would save him the expense of a boy to look after his cattle, and would be altogether more satisfactory to— himself.;

There is an honesty and heartiness in the vilification I have personally received from your correspondent (signing himselt' R. H. Rhodes) which convinces me that he is perfectly unacquainted "with all the kind offices which I have received from himself; and I am sure he would be the first to retract the insulting language he uses towards me in his letter. It has,'however, given me nd'real offence, as truth only wrings the moral withers, and I do not think any of my friends would recognise my blackened portrait. I prefer peace to war, but shall always, stand up against injustice, oppression, and the mean selfishness which seeks to aggrandise itself at the expense of others.

An attentive study of the 21st chapter of the Ist book of Kings I would recommend to my kind neighbour, as containing a wealth of instruction, better than sheep or cattle upon a thousand hills.

MARK P. STODDART.