MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 1929, 23 February 1867, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

♦ CHEISTCHDBCH. Thob-day, Fbb. 21. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., 8.M.) James Clarlc was charged, with hating been drunk and disorderly, and also with having resisted the police in the execution of their duty. The accused is an old offender, and there was a long list of convictions against bin attached to the charge sheet. . His Worship said in answer to an application from tho prisoner that the offence might be overlooked, that it was impossible for him to do to, as he wa3 convinced that the prisoner was an incorrigible vagrant. The sentence upon him would be imprisonment for .one month, with hard labour, , , William Jefcott was fined 10s for having been drunk and for wilful damage to property, he having broken a pane of glass of the value of Bs. His Worship advised him to compensate the owner of the property destroyed. Several cases of breach of the Cattle Trespass Ordinance weie disposed of, fines varying from 6s upwards being imposed. His Worship remarked that it was most extraordinary that people would persist in breaking the law. He had warned many persons against the practice of transgressing the Cattle Ordinance. If the habit was persevered in he should be reluctantly compelled to raise the fine. When this was formerly done, the nuisance had been abated, but since the fine had been reduced the cases had become very numerous.

A number of cases under the Dog Nuisance Ordinance were heard. A fine of £1 was imposed in each case. Edward George was charged with having obstructed the footpath in High street, by leaving some cases of boots standing on the pavement. The defendant pleaded that the cases were only left on the footpath until they could be brought into the store, which was done as speedily as possible. His Worship fined the defendant 2s 6d. as he beliveJ that there had not been, in this instance, any wilful breach of the law. Thomas Hazard was charged with a breach of the Hackney Carriage Ordinance, by not having two lights attached to his rehicle. He had only one light burning, and when cautioned by constable Jeffrey, who had frequently seen him using only one light, had replied that one was quite sufficient.

His Worship said that the defendant bad broken the law in defiance of a caution, and thai he must be fined 10s,

Charles Cradock was charged with having used language towards George Bonnett calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. It appeared that the parties are neighbours, and that a dispute had arisen between thom about some damage alleged to have been done to a fence which divides their respective properties. , His Worship, after condemning the unjustifiable language used by the defendant towards the plaintiff, fined him 6s. Langlands was charged with having assaulted F. Mountain, at Porter's Pass. It appeared that a quarrel had taken place beteen the parties, in the course of which the defendant had struck the plaintiff. On the othor hand the defendant asserted that the plaintiff had knocked him down, and had severely kicked him as he was lying on the ground. His Worship remarked that an assault had been committed by tho defendant, who would be fined 10s. The lino was a comparatively light one as the defendant would have to pay the heavy expenses of tho witnesses, namely £7. Jame3 Fry was brought up as being a person of unsound mind. Drs Prins and leach having certified that he was suffering from delirium tremens, and that he would probably recover in a day or two, he was ordered to be detained until Saturday. Fbway Feb. 22. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., ft.M.)

Philip Jones, who had been remanded on a charge of obtaining money by means of a valueless cheque, was again remanded until Monday next. Eobert Wilson was brought up on a charge of larceny as a bailee. Sergeant M'Knight said he arrested the prisoner, who appeared to be drunk, but on his way to the watch-house he got better. WUnoat told him what he was arrested for, and cautioned him, He said he had not stolen the mare, but borrowed her, and had borrowed five pounds on her at the Shearers' Arms. The mare was outside the court.

Eobevt Sajers said ho was at Bashford's on the 20th of the present month, where he saw the prisoner. He saw the prisoner at Mr Hall's first, which was before Christmas. He was not his mate. Witness had a mare, bridle, and saddle, on the 20th, and prisoner asked the loan of the mare, and he, witness, lent her to him with the saddle and bridle. Prisoner said he would return the mare next day,bul subsequently be learned from Scotch Jack that prisoner had taken away his swag. Witness came to town next morning, and saw the prisoner at Mr Beattis's. He asked him whew the maro was and he replied that she was at the Shearers' Arms. He found the mare in the paddock at the Shearers' Arms, and she was claimed by a man. He had not given prisoner authority to sell the mare, and had never had any dealings with him. The marc, saddle, and bridle, were worth £lO.

Thomas Falder deposed that he resided in Ferry road, and was a stockdealer. He saw the prisoner on the 20th inst., where the railway crosses the South road, and prisonrr accompanied him to Christchurch with his, witness's permission, prisoner saying his horse was knocked up, and he wanted to encourage it, On the road prisoner asked him to buy the horse for £5, but be refused. He went with prisoner to the Shearers' Arms. Prisoner again asked him to buy the mare, and he refused at first, but afterwards bought her for £5, andl got a receipt; (receiptproduced.) The mare was then outside the Couit. Robert Beattie examined: He was landlord of tho Warwick Hotel. He remembered prisoner coining to his house on the 20th. He stayed all night, and said he had a horse to sell, and would tako £o for it. Witness told him to fetch the horse, and if it was worth the money he would buy it. This was tho case for the prosecution. Prisoner mado no defence, and was committed for trial.

IYTTELTON. Fbiday, Fbb. 22. (Before Wm. Donald, Esq., E.M.) Jas. Baxter, alias Allan M'Gregor, was brought up on remand, on the charge of murdoring Mr and Mrs Tickncr, at Hobart Town. Detective Constable Violers was present in court, having arrived from Hobart Town. On being sworn, he said: He knew the prisoner at the bar. He was known to him twelve months before the murder occurred in Hobart Town. It happened on the 18th Feb. 1860. Witness said he recollected the circumstances of the murder, it occurred on the morning of the 18th February. The victims appeared to have been murdered with a tomahawk; neither the weapon nor tho murderer had evor been discovered. He had every reason to believe the prisoner to be the person who committed the murder, He resided within a quarter of a mile from the scene. The signatures to the depositions were those of Mr A. B. Jonqs, police magistrate at Hobart Town. They were the depositions of W. Vickers and Henry Brown, of Hobart Town. Tho depositions were then read. The prisoner, after receiving a caution, stated that the stat°ment mado before by him was all a delusion. He had no idea where he was on the night of tho murder. Ho heard the account read at Mr Dean's house, who is mentioned in the depositions. In the state of mind he was in when he made the confession, he believed that he had done the deed. He did not know anything about tho tomahawk. Ho domed all knowledge of tho murder, and did not wish to say anything more.

Detective Tickers applied for tho discharge of tho prisoner. The Resident Magistrate then discharged the accused, and ordered that he should be conveyed to tbo hospital, in consequence of his illness. Accused appeared to be suffering from serious illness, and wan conveyed to the hospital during the afternoon.