MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLV, Issue 4666, 28 January 1876, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. a Thubsday, Jan/ 27. a (Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., R.M., and G. L. 4 Lee, Esq., J.P.) I The Court opened at 11 o’clock. c Dbunkbnnebs and Obscene Language.— v Joseph Goodwin was fined 10s. * Deunk and DisoedeeLy. —An inebriate 4 who appeared for the first time was fined 6s. t Richard Harper was fined 20s. e Dbunk while in. chaege of Hobses 1 AND Ybhiolbs. —Thomas Barton was fined 10s. c George Webley, a licensed cabman, was also 8 fined 10s. 5 Hobses and Cattle at Laeqe. —The fol- J lowing persons were fined for permitting * horses and cattle to wander at largeT. 8. J Dingle, ss; Geo. Husband, ss; T. £. Bush, 4 6a ; John Harper, 6s. * Dbunkbnnebs and Assaulting the 1 Police.— Joseph Clarke, alias the Brasher, t against whom there was a very long list of 4 previous convictions, was fined 40s, and * cautioned that he would bo very differently J dealt with if he was brought up again.—Alfred 4 Tomes was also fined 40s. ® Miscellaneous Defences.— James Willis, 4 for tethering a horse in Gloucester street, was * fined 10s.—A charge against James Clark, for 1 permitting a ferocious dog to bo at large and 8 unmuzzled, was adjourned for a week, as the T complainant was reported by Inspector 7 Buckley to he as yet unable to leave his bed. Jj —Arthur Devery, for having furiously driven £ a horse and vehicle in the City, was fined 10s. h —James Greig, for having neglected to keep a ’ light burning on a hoarding erected by him at 8 the corner of Colombo and Lichfield streets, r was fined 10s.—John Clark, for having ncgli- 8 gently permitted the chimney of his house to J get on fire, was fined 10s.—Kate Oaney, for f having set fire to inflammable matter in the J 1 open air, was fined 10s.—John Hill, a licensed *■ ■cabman, for having neglected to remain in constant attendance upon bis horse and cab, was fined 10s. c Beeach of «hb Railway Offences Act, i —Henry Potter was charged with having j travelled on the Racecourse and Southbridge i railway, and also with having jumped off the c train while in motion. The guard of the i train proved both offences, but, in reply to c accused, admitted that accused told him on ] .getting into the train that he had not a ticket, a but would get one at Southbridge. Accused, r i however, jumped off the train before it f ■stopped, at Southbridge, went away and was 1 not seen again until the following Wednes- j day. Accused said he did not jump off the i train with any intention of evading payment s of the fare, and would have gone to see about a the latter before Wednesday if he had not in 1 the meantime met with an accident. As it f was he would remind the Bench that he wont 1 entirely of his own accord to pay the fare on t the Wednesday. His Worship said it would f -never do to permit railway fares to be hold I over, and for this offence accused would be S ■fined 20s, and 10s for jumping off the train < •while in motion. I Dbiving Sheet on the Railway Line,— ; YVilliam Hall, a shepherd on the Acton run, ! was charged with having illegally driven sheep along the Great Southern Line of Railway. Mr G. Harper appeared for the defence. The evidcr.ee for the prosecution went to show that accused drove a mob of 3000 sheep on to the ( line, and, though cautioned by some of the , lino men, continued to drive the sheep along the lino for a distance of four or five chains. Accused, being sworn, gave evidence to the effect that the sheep strayed on to the line, but he got them off again as quickly as ho could, Mr Harper, addressing the Bench, liointed out that a mob of 3000 sheep could not bo driven off the line in a moment, and .contended that accused had used every possible dispatch in getting them away. His Worship jaid it was proved by two witnesses that accused drove the sheep along the line for a distance of four or five chains, and he must cither have been a very bad shepherd or had very bad dogs if ho could not get them off 'before they had gone so far as that. A fine of 20s would be imposed, _ „ A Row AT Wamhaw. —Albert Russell was charged with having unlawfully and maliciously wounded John Condon, and the latter was charged on a cross summonswith having assaulted Russell. Mr Wynn Williams appeared for Russell. Rota the cases were taken together The evrdence for .Condon went to show that about eleven •o’clock on the night of Deo. 16, some stones were thrown at his house, and on Mrs Condon going outside she was struck Sth a stone. She called her husband Who on going to the door was also struck with a stone, which severely injured his left arm. He caught Bussell near the house, and assaulted him so severely, that Bu«« e h had to he taken to the Hospital, where he resnained for some weeks. It also fPP e "**J that a man named Balloon and his wife kt I near, were annoyed by stone- throwing tea same night, ani Balloon identified two of the witnesses called by Bussell as being among

those who threw the stones. Bussell, and three witnesses called in his behalf, gave evidence to the effect that while some of them were passing Condon's house on the night named, two dogs belonging to Condon rushed' out and attacked them. They threw some stones at the dogs, but denied having thrown any at the house. Russell had been with thdta in the earlier part of the. evening, but they all assorted that ho was not with them at this time. Russell averred that he was going home with a friend named Fowler when they met Mrs Condon, who charged them with having thrown stones at the house. They denied this, when she called her husband, who, on coming out, attacked Bussell in a most violent manner with something like a rake. His Worship said the Bench did not believe the evidence for Russell. The whole affair was an outrageous piece of larrikinism, and the larrikins had this time caught a Tartar. The charge against Condon would be dismissed, and Bussell would be fined 40s. Breaches of the Public House Ordinance.—Jacob S, Wagner, licensee of the Clarendon Hotel, was charged on three separate informations with having neglected to inform the police of an extension of his license granted for the dinner to Mr John Anderson, on jan. 14, for keeping open his licensed house during prohibited hours on the morning of Jan. 16, and for having sold liquor during prohibited hours at the same time and place. Mr Thomas appeared for the defence. He said he admitted that his client had not given the police notice of the extension of the license for the dinner, but this was due to the fact that Mr Wagner did not obtain the signature of a second Justice of the Peace to the extension of license, until late in the evening; and further, that Mr Wagner did not know it was imperative for him to give the police notice of the extension of license. Mr Wagner regretted the offence, and had apologised for his neglect, but apart from this he (Mr Thomas) would point out that no conviction could bo recorded as the Ordinance did not provide for a penalty in such a case. After a short dijcussion between Mr Thomas and the Bench, his Worship said the point raised by Mr Thomas was fatal, and tho charge would therefore be dismissed.—The efiargea of keeping the house open and selling liquor during prohibted hours on the morning of Jan. 15 were next gone into. Acting-Sergeant Gatward called, said his attention being attracted to the Clarendon Hotel on the morning of Jan. 15, he went in, and found a number of men in the bar, which was lit up. This was about twenty minutes past two o’clock. Mr Wagner and the barman were behind the bar, and witness saw a bottle containing something passed over the bar counter to one of the men, but he did not see any one have a drink. He spoke to Mr Wagner, who treated the : matter very lightly, and said he could not get the men out of the house earlier. Subsequently witness saw Mr Kirk, the manager, i with a bottle in bis hand outside the hotel. Mr Thomas cross-examined the witness, but ■ failed to obtain anything new from him, ex- i cept that he knew accused had an extension of . license until two o’clock. Andrew Kirk, i manager for Mr Anderson, called, said that he i was in the bar when Sergeant Gatward came i in, but he had not been supplied with a drink in the bar, nor did he see any one else have . drinks. By Mr Thomas; It was about a ; quarter past two o’clock when the Sergeant ! came in. There had been a dinner to Mr John Anderson at the hotel, and about i seventy persons were present. Some time i before two o’clock Mr Wagner came into the i dining-room, and requested the men to leave, and he repeated this request several times ' afterwards, urging the men to leave so as not i to get him into trouble. Those who were I present at tho dinner had to pay for their own i drinks, and he was told that the reason they i went into the bar after leaving the dining- i room was to settle up for tho drinks they had. 1 Mr Wagner appeared very anxious to clear i his bouse before two o’clock, and did I everything he possibly could to get the i men out. Accused, called in evidence, i explained how he had been unable to find a 1 second Justice of the Peace to sign the exten- I sion of license until a late hour, and that be 1 had quite overlooked the necessity for giving the police notice of the extension. He also ] asserted that he used every endeavour to clear i the hotel before two o’clock, but could not do i so, and he did not think he would have got i the men away for another half hour if Ser- ] geant Gatward had not come in. He denied I that any drinks had been supplied after the i company left the dining-room, and if the 1 Sergeant saw anyone with a bottle, it must I have been brought from the dining room. The : company merely went into the bar to pay for I the drinks they had during the dinner. In reply to Inspector Buckley, accused said that i he did not supply any liquor in the bar him- i self, nor could the barman have done so, as he i was not behind the bar counter at all. He i was merely in and out of the bar at intervals i in the discharge of his ordinary duties. Mr i Thomas proceeded to address the Bench for his client, but his Worship said the Bench « were inclined to accept the statement made by i Mr Kirk that Mr Wagner bad urgently i requested the men to leave before two o’clock, i and would therefore dismiss the case. Accused must, however, take more effective measures in < future to clear his hotel before the expiration s of the time named in the extension of his < license. - 1 (Before Q. L. Mellish, Esq., R.M.) 1 Civil Cases. —H. Alexander v.D. Jeffreys; • claim, £3 6s; judgment for amount claimed, ( with costs, 9b, to be paid at the rate of 10s ( per week.—J. Martin v. J. W. Carter ; claim, ( £ll6s; judgment for amount claimed, with ] costs, 9s.—W. Crowe v. J. Hudson ; claim, . £3 11s 3d ; judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs, 9s.—L. Gahagan v. J. Keogh ; claim, £R ; judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs, 13s.—J. Allan v. T. Clarke ; claim, £1 16s j judgment by default for amount claimed, with coats, 9a.—E. , M. Mein v. A. M'Farlane; claim, £3 16s lOd ; judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs, 9s.—Superintendent v. S. Qrokrop- ' skie ; claim, £1 j judgment by default for ( amount claimed, with costs, 9s.—Same Mil M'Cafferty j claim, £1; judgment by default ( for amount claimed, with costs, 9s.—Same v. E. J. Comer ; claim, £1 10s ; judgment by defanlt for amount claimed, with; costs, 9s.— Same v. S. Brisk ; claim, £2 10s ; judgment for amount claimed, plaintiff to pay costs.— Same v. F. Moore ; claim, £1; judgment for defendant, with costs, 9s, defendant allowed 8s expenses.—N. Welsh v. J. Ingleshy; claim, £4l9s 3d ; tendered 9s 3d; judgment for 9s 3d, plaintiff to pay costs, 10s. LYTTELTON. (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.) Drunk,— An inebriate, who made his first appearance, was fined 103, or 48 hours’ imprisonment. _ Civil Oases.— Caroline Hayward v. W. Burnip j claim, £l3, for wages and wrongful dismissal; Mr O’Neill for plaintiff, Mr H. N. Nalder for defendant s £3 was paid into court j judgment for amount paid into court, expenses 22*.—Miller v. Brough ; claim, £25, dishonoured cheque } Mr H. N. Nalder for plaintiff, Mr O’Neill for defendant. This claim arose from a cheque being dishonoured, which had beenpaid as stakes for a challenge race between the boats Bingarooma and Timaru, which took place on Jan. 6. The Umpire’s (Mr Boddington) decision having been given in favour of the former, the stake-holder (Mr Carder) paid over the stakes to the plaintiff, and the defendant stopped payment of the cheque. After hearing the evidence, the Bench gave judgment for full amount claimed, with cost of witnesses and professional fees.—Lyttelton Borough Council rates— Jndgment was given in the following cases s —T. Kelly, 18s 5 G- Messiter, £4 8s ; Chapman, 16s j J. H. Newton, 10a; 0. Wrousby, 18» ; J. Newton, 18s. Taylor v. M. Barton ; claim, £3 8s fid ; ordered to pay 40s per month, or, in default, one month s imprisonment.—Armitage Bros. v. M. Barton ; ; claim, £8 8s 8d j ordered to pay 40s per 1 month, or one month's imprisonment.—Cuff 1 and Graham v. Christie ; claim, £3 Is 6d j | judgment by default, with costs, 10s. I kajafoi. j (Before his Worship the Mayor.) • Drunk and Disorderly.— John Terry, I arrested by Constable Smart, was fined 10s, 9 or, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment, Prill soner accepted the alternative.