MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 5012, 13 March 1877, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Mabch 12,

(Before Q. L. Mellisb, 8.M., Dr Deamer, and W. H. Pilliett, Eaqr.)

DBUNEENNBaa. Two inebriates, who had not been previously before the Court, were dealt with; one was fined 10s, and the other was remanded to March 20, for medical treatment: and John Foster was fined 20s, and ordered to pay 2s cab hire. Neil Smith was with Bobert Dunn, also charged with committing a breach of the peace. Smith, who was also charged with assaulting the constable, was fined 40s, and Dunn 10s. Obscene Language.—Bridget Forriok was charged with using obscene language in a public thoroughfare, to wit, Manchester street, and fined 20s.

Laeoent.—Thomas GLffney, alias John Clements, alias Haggerty, alias Oavenagb, alias John Smith, was charged with stealing a pair of trousers and a vest from the shop of S. Cohen, Colombo street. Prisoner was seen with the articles in his possession, and was endeavouring to dispose of them at the Borough Hotel, when he was taken into custody. Mr Cohen identified the trousers and vest as his property. The prisoner said that he found the articles lying on the ground. Detective Walker deposed that prisoner bad been several times previously convicted of theft under different names. The Bench sentenced the prisoner to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour,—James Konnedv was charged with stealing a swag. Detective iurby said that he met prisoner on Saturday evening coming out of Barrett’s Hotel with a swag in his possession, whioh he said was his. Witness took prisoner into custody. John Gardiner identified the swag as his property; witness had left it at Barrett's hotel. Never authorised the prisoner to take the swag from the hotel. Prisoner said that if he had not taken the swag, somebody else would have done so. (Laughter). Edward Gookson, landlord of the hotel, proved that prisoner took the swag, saying that it was bis. Sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment, with hard labour. James Johnson was brought up on remand, charged with stealing from the person, and was farther remanded to March 20. —Biohard Coleman was brought up on remand, charged with stealing a coat from the Oaversham hotel on Feb. 21 last. Prisoner, when arrested at Addington, said that a man gave him the coat to pledge, that ho did not know the man, nor could he describe him. Detective Neil deposed that the coat had been identified by a man named Harrison, as having been lost by him from the skittle alley, at the Oaversham hotel. It was proved that prisoner was seen sitting alongside the coat at the hotel, and that he pawned it at Nathan’s, in the name of Biohard Sullivan. The Bench sentenced prisoner to 14 days’ Imprisonment, with hard labour. Miscellaneous Offences. Biohard Aynsloy was charged with violently assaulting his wife, Ann Aynsley, on March S. Mrs Aynsley stated that her husband came home drunk and knocked her about the head, and kicked the children when they tried to prevent him. The defendant’s daughter corroborated her mother’s evidence. The Bench ordered defendant to enter into his own recognizance of £2O, and to find one surety in £lO to keep the peace for 12 months.—Edward Barrett was charged with having, on March 8, assaulted Alexander Anderson, at Woolston. Mr Joynt appeared for defendant. After hearing the evidence, the Bench said that the ease was very trumpery, but as a blow had been struck by the defendant, he would be ordered to pay costs lls 6d.—John Murphy, charged with creating a disturbance in the Eastern Hotel, was fined 10s, and to pay costs 6s 63. —Lauritz Neilson was charged with disobeying an order of the Court to contribute £1 per week for the support of his wife, Deborah Neilson. ‘ It appeared that the parties were living in the same bouse. Defendant said that he objected to pay any more, os he wanted a separation from bis wife. The Bench adjourned the case for a week, in order that an arrangement might be effected. —Daniel Stacey was charged with travelling, on Feb. 10, on the Southbridge Bail way, not having paid tho fare, and was fined 20s. Assault,—Edward Pooley was charged with having on Feb. 28 violently assaulted and beaten Balph Donkin. Mr Joynt for the complainant j Mr Oowlishaw for tne defendant. Balph Donkin deposed that he lived at Warner’s Hotel, On the evening of Fab, 28, witness was in the billiard room bar with some friends. Defendant came to witness and demanded £36 for a bet. Witness declined to pay, as he had oriod off the bet, as it was an unfair one. Twice Pooley wanted to compromise tho mutter, and ultimately Pooley said “ if you were not an old man I would strike you.” Ultimately Pooley struck witness in the face over the barman’s shoulders. Witness then wont away, and then Pooley followed and again asked for the money, and struck witness two or three times in the face. Witness struck Pooley with a stick in self-de-fence. Pooley then got witness down and struok him with his ring several times; afterwards Pooley followed witness to his bedroom, but was put away by tho landlord. Crossexamined : X had made a bet whioh I refused to pay, I cannot swear that Pooley did not offer to submit the bet to arbitration. Tho first altercation took place in _ the bar-room. The barman saw tho altercation in tho passage, and came and interfered. Pooley made use of very bad language in the passage, and called me bad names. When I was waking away with Oharlwood and Mr Buck, P o y came and said, “ Are you going to W» that money ?” Ho then took hold of mo. and then assaulted mo again. I do not know whether Pooley’e bedroom was next to mmo at the hotel. W. Radoliffo deposed that bo was proprietor of Warner a Hotel. Mr Donkin and Mr Pooley lodged there. On tho evening of Fob. 28. witness saw Donkin on tho ground, and Pooley on the top of him. Pooley struck Donkin several times, and then a gentleman came up

and took Pooley away. MrDonkia then went into the hotel; ho wai bleeding from the nose, end hie /see was bruiied. When Donkin wae woehing in hie room, Pooley came up, and ae eomo altercation wae beginning, witneee put a etop to it. Cross-examined—Pooley did not attempt to push post into Donkin's room. Pooley’s face was bleeding and braised. John Dailey deposed that ho was at the Commercial Hotel on the crening of Fob. 28. Knew Donkin and Pooley, Mr Donkin asked witness whether he did not tell one of the waiters that the bet was off. Witness said "Yes.” Mr Pooley struck Mr Donkin first in the passage j he struck him in the face. By the Bench—Pooley’s face wae not bleeding then. Cross-examined—They were in the passage when the blow was struck. The conversation was angry on Pooioy’s side, who was not very complimonto-y in his language. Saw nothing more after that. Joseph Watson deposed that he was barman at the Commercial Hotel, On the evening of Feb. 28, Pooley wanted Donkin to poy him the smont of a bet. Pooley said that Donkin was no gentleman, but a swindler, and that he would pay the ■■ out before the night was over; Pooley struck Donkin in the face, and then witness took Pooley away, and he went out. Donkin gave no provocotion to Pooley. Crossexamined : When I got hold of Pooley he said he wanted to give the a hiding. Did not hear Pooley say that he would go quietly away, Pooley struggled with mo. Did not hear Donkin refuse to pay the debt. Thomas Swinton deposed that on the evening of Fob. 28 ho was in the Commercial Hotel. Heard Pooley say to Donkin, " are you going to pay or are you not ?” Donkin replied, “ No, I told you before the match that it was a catch bet, and I shan’t pay.” The witness then deposed to the assault in the passage, and also to seeing Pooley follow Donkin up stairs, and sending Mr Badcliffe op after them. Cross-examined: Was not in the habit of betting, but made bets occasionally. Was not in the habit of making dishonest bets. Witness' occupation woe that of locomotive foreman. Mr Digby was with witness at the time, but Mr Digby walked away. A gentleman came in with Mr Pooley. Mr Badcliffe was then towards the dining-room. Witness advised Badcliffe to go up stairs to prevent a quarrel. Mr Cowlishaw: Have you received any money to give your evidence in this case? Witness: Certainly not. 1 consider it an insult. I never have rehearsed any evidence, it is the truth. George Alfred Buck deposed that he was in Donkin’s company at the Commercial Hotel on Fob. 28. The witness then gave evidence of the assau’t in the passage in the hotel, and said that afterwards, in the passage leading to the Lyttelton Times office, Pooley again assaulted Donkin, who struck with bis stick in self defence. Witness then accompanied Donkin to his room at the hotel. Pooley came up to the door and said, “ Let me have him,” and then Mr Badcliffe got Pooley away. Pooley also said that he would have Donkin in the morning. Witness thought Donkin was very forbearing. Donkin was sober; could not answer for Pooley. Cross-exa-mined : Would swear distinctly that Donkin did not strike Pooley with his stick an til he was struck first. Had not been very active in getting up this case. Went with Donkin to a solicitor. Hod had a conversation with the barman and others casually on the case, but nothing else; had never received any favours from “ Donkin. This closed complainant’s case. Mr Cowlishaw said that after the bet was won, Donkin, on being applied to for the money, repudiated it on the grounds, first, that it was a catch bet, and secondly, that as Mr Pooley was umpire, the bet was illegal. Mr Pooley was irritated, and admitted that he did strike Donkin in the hotel, but be did not strike Donkin outside until Donkin had strnck him three or four times with a stick. The following witnesses were called for the defence. Thomas Lakeman deposed that on the evening of Fab. 28, after high words, Pooley struck Donkin slightly inside the hotel. Donkin then went out, and Pooley followed him, and, touching him on the shoulder, said, “Are you going to pay me that money ?” Donkin then turned round and struck Pooley heavily three times with a stick. Pooley then closed with him, and threw him down. Witness then took Pooley away up to witness’ bedroom, and sponged and plaisterod his face. Pooloy a-rpvmiied his sorrow for what hod occurred. Did not think Pooley harboured revengeful feelings against Donkin. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt: It was a slight blow that Pooley struck Donkin first, for it did not knock him down; did not hear Pooley call Donkin a name (which it is unnecessary to reproduce). Pooley did not strike Donkin at all in the street, until after Donkin had struck him with a stick. Donkin struck Pooley one blow over the eye, and another in the centre of the forehead. Did not hear Pooley say to Donkin, “You ——, I’ve got you now.” By the Bench : Pooley was wearing a soft felt hat at the time. The defendant was then sworn, and, examined by Mr Cowlishaw, said that Donkin laid him £6 to £1 that ho (Pooley) did not name the individual score of the Eighteen. Witness asked Donkin for the money, and some high words ensued in the hotel, and witness struck him slightly. In the street witness again asked Donkin for the money, and he turned round and struck witness with his stick, and then witness closed with him in self-defence. Had Mr Donkin seen witness in his room, he believed that they would have shaken hands and been good friends. When witness named the individual score of each of the eighteen, he put down a number against each name. The number he put down was G (a “ duck’s egg.”) Should not think a professional brother would have made such a bet with witness, as ho would have had too much sense. Went to Donkin’s bedroom to shake hands with him. T. 8. Sweet deposed that ho had heard the nature of the bet. He considered it a fair bet. Mr Cowlishaw addressed the Bench for defendant, and contended that the weight of evidence certainly showed that Mr Donkin was ‘-he aggressor, Mr Donkin having mercilessly assaulted Mr Pooley with a heavy stick before [ Mr Pooley turned upon him. As to the assault committed in the bar of the hotel, there Mr Pooley, certainly after great provocation, did strike Mr Donkin, and he would submit that a slight penalty would be sufficient to meet the justice of the case. Mr Joynt replied on the whole case, and submitted that it was incredible to suppose that Mr Donkin all at once assaulted Mr Pooley with his stick in the street without provocation being given. The whole affair showed a spirit of revenge on the part of Mr Pooley, which, he hoped, the Court would visit heavily. Mr Mollish said that the weight of evidence as to the aecond assault was in favour oi the complaisant. As to the first assault, that was admitted. The defendant would bo fined £5 and costs. Wilfully and Maliciously Damaging Pebsonal Pkofbkty.— Edward Pooley and Albert Braraball wore charged on the information of Ralph Donkin with having on Fob. 28, unlawfully and maliciously committed damage and injury to certain personal property belonging to the said Ralph Donkin, between the hours of 9 in the evening and 6 o’clock the next morning. Mr Joynt appeared for the complainant and Mr Cowlishaw for the defendants. Ralph Donkin deposed that on the evening of Feb. 28, witness was staying at the Commercial Hotel. Hoard Pooley say that before the morning ho would have it out of the - Witness I was advised to leave the hotel, which ho did. The next morning, on going into his room, he found that some tracings and plans of the Lvttolton waterworks had been aestroyed, also some articles of clothing. Did not know who had destroyed them. Valued the dothing destroyed at from £36 to £3B ; valued the plans at £6O, some of them could not bo reproduced without actual survey. The door ot witness’ bedroom showed traces of having been forced open. Cross-examined by Mr Cowhshaw: The suits of clothes wore torn up the back and across. (The witness here exhibited the clothing and plans which had been torn, and the latter sot on fire.) The clothes were banging at the back of the door. The tracings were left by witness on the dressing table all right when witness left the hotel on the night of Feb. 28. The hat partially burned, and which was given to witness by the waiter, was not witness’ property. Joseph Watson, barman at the Commercial Hotel, deposed as to the quarrel between Pooley and Donkin. Did not see Bramhall at all that evening. Eliza Jane Shannon deposed that on Feb. 28 she

vu housemaid at the Commercial Hotel. Before she went to bed on that night she was in Mr Donkin’s room ; it wae about half-past 10 or a little later. The room was then in ite usual state. Did not know whether she locked or shat the door. Cross-examined: Did not notice any clothes lying on the bed. John Ackerman deposed that he was waiter at the Commercial Hotel. Know Mr Donkin’s room— No, 6. Knew Pooley and Bramhall. Witness was walking outside the hotel at about 10 minutes to 11 o’clock on the night of Feb. 28. Saw a light in the window of Donkin’s room, and then went upstairs to see if Mr Donkin had returned. Saw Bramhall corning from Donkin’s room towards No. 6, and Mr Pooley coming out of Donkin’s room (No. 6). Did not notice whether they had a light or r.ot, at the gas was burning at each end of the passage. Neither witness nor the defendants spoke at that time. Witness walked straight into Mr Donkin’s room, and saw that the clothes were lying about, and two hats in the wash basin ; there wore tom clothes lying on the floor and also a bat j witness went and got a candle, and saw that the clothes were tom. Found the hat produced on the candle stand next morning j did net know to whom it belonged. The same night, when witness came out of Donkin’s room, he locked the door and took the key. Pooley was then standing at his bedroom door. Pooley said “ Who sleep* in No. 7, pointing to Donkin’s bedroom ? ” He also said —" You tell Mr Donkin from me, that if be sleeps there to-night he will find himiclf half-dead in the morning.” The next morning, at half-past R o’clock, saw Pooley ham mering at Donkin’s door with a stick. He said—“ Did Dor.km sleep there last night?” Witness said “ no,” and opened the door, an-t said somebody has been trying to break into Mr Donkin’s room. Pooley said—“ I suppose it was some of our boys last night, breause tae would not pay his bets.” Mr Bramhall came to the place with the cricketers, and loft with them. Cross-examined : The Music Hall that night came out about 20 minutes past 10 o’clock. The girl Shannon was at the Music Hall that night. Directly witness saw the light, ho went up-stairs. Bramhsil was not a yard from the door of Donkin’s room. Could not soy whether Pooley had a light or not. By the Bench: Mr Bramhall slept in No. 1. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Cowlishaw submitted that there was nothing to connect Bramhall with the case; he ws* simply seen in the passage walking to hi? own room. Mr Joynt, for the prosecution, argued that there was a primd facie cas» against Bramhall, seeing that this was ea indictable offence. Mr Meliish said that he would not take the responsibility of tayin? that there was no prirnd facie case. T. 8. Sweet deposed that, on the evening of Feb. 28 last, he was in company with Bramhall from about a quarter to eight o’clock to twenty minutes to eleven o’clock. Left Bramhall then in Mr Sadcliffe’s office. Witness was paying Bramhall for the sale or cards on the ground. Believed that Mr Bramhall intended to go up to MortenT Hotel. Mr Cowlishaw said that he LaT subpoenaed Mr Morten, who intimated that ho could not come down, as he could not afford to lose his time. He would ask for Mr Morten to be called on his aubpsena, and, ic he did not appear, for a warrant to be issued. Arthur Whitley deposed that he remain beve l Wednesday, Feb. 28, Was in Pooley’s company that night from 8.30 to 10.30. They went up the town, and visited various hotels. Witness went with Pooley, on his return to the Commercial, into the bar, and left him there. By Mr Joynt; Did not go into Baucliffe’s office. Did not know what became of Pooley afterwards. Charles Alexander, bil-liard-marker at the Commercial Hotel, deposed that, on Feb. 28 last, Pooley came into the billiard room at half-past eight o’clock, and stayed until tea o’clock, fie then wi-nr. away, and coming back again, stayed until tae room was closed. Did not see Mr Bramhai. that evening. James Hirst deposed that La saw Bramhall that night (Feb. 28) at ti-a hotel at from half-past eight o’clock to eleven o’clock. He was selling groups of th-: cricketers, and was continually going up ani down stairs j moving about, and fetching groups. Bramhall was only absent about, five minutes at a time. By Mr Joynt: D.i not see Pooley after the affray. Saw Bramhall with one group ; he said he bad not avy down ataii-a. Si™ him 20 uu stairs twin*. Supposed he went for the groups. J. W. Mortis deposed that he remembered Bramhall being , a his hotel on the last night of the cricket mat in company with a coachman. That was from 10.30 to 10.45 p.m., but witness could not exactly fix the time. Did not recollect Bran - hall coming to the hotel with Mr Sweet. 1- r Cowlishaw submitted that there was not tb-*-slightmt evidence to implicate Bramhal there was nothing to show that there was a concerted action oa the part of the defendams that evening. With reference to Pooley, tbs evidence was not sufficient to warrant sends 1?, the case to trial. Mr Meliish—“ I think may save time. Ail your arguments, .'.it Cowlishaw, will not prevent the ease s-s against Pooley going for trial.” Mr Joynt pointed out that just at the time the ws: ■ r got up the passage Bramhall was seen cl vf to the door out of which Pooley was coni' Mr Meliish said that the Bench saw no ctr. v course than to send both cases for trial. T’: > defendants, on being called on in the ur. way, said that they knew nothing of rb - matter. They were then fully committed v-t trial at the next sittings of the Supreme C' m in Christchurch. Mr Cowlishaw asked t ; : Bench to admit the defendants to bail. Mellisb. said each must enter into his recognizance of £2OO, and find two sure 7 :.*? of £IOO each. Messrs J. Hirst and Haddrell became sureties for Pooley, a? > Messrs J. Hirst and J. O. Shepherd Bramhall.

ZAIAPOI. Monday, Mabcii 12,

(Before C. Whitefoord, Esq-, R.M.) Extension of Licenses. — Bi.eution licenses were granted to the Pier and K kanui Hotels on the day of the regatta, .... the licensee of Middleton’s Hotel was a!!c r • ; to have an extra bar in his house. Dkcnk and Discedkbi-t. —James Hham was dismissed with a caution. Civil Cases. — Board of Education v. v,' . Moody j claim £l. The Bench ruled tha: as the house in question was in a dilapidarc-.y state, and only used in harvest time, it cut.’-; not bo considered a house within the meaning of the Education Ordinance. Judgment a.u» entered for the defendant.—Birch and C>‘. x. Hindell; claim £2 11s. Judgment plaintiff.