MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5598, 3 February 1879, Page 7

MAGISTERIAL.

CHBI3TOHTJECH. Tubsday, Jaw. 28. (Before G-. L. Lee and C. E. Blakiston, Esqs.) Crvili CASBB.—W. Bobinson v. Bev. H. Qlasson, claim £5 3s 6d; judgment by default, and costs Bs.—T. Pnston v. C. Gieaseller, claim £Blss 9d j judgment by default,* and costs 9s.—-A. Wilson v. D. Beaton, claim! £7 15s; plaintiff non-suited, costs, 8s; solicitor’s fee, £l ls. Mr Loughnan for defendant,—E. Evans v. B, Qaidd, chum £4 j judgment for amount claimed,-and costs7s.-r-T. Tihnan • v.T. Boole/' claim £l6 5s ; -iu!dgment by default, and .posts' 15s.;—T. Tfimah T * J, Bletcbferihmujjgi’ l(Ts;,,'-.plaintiff nonsuited, with hosts ss.‘' 'Mr’lsai’d' for plaintiff,’ Mr Thomas for defendant.—J. Kay v. B. Jackson, claim £2 10s; judgment by default, and costs ss.—P. Davis and Co. v. W. Cook,

claim £9 ls8d; judgment by default, and costs 9s.

Wednesday, Jan. 29. f (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., 8.M.) i Civil Cases.—The Queen, by J. B. March, Immigration Officer v. D. Green, claim £l2 ; judgment for plaintiff ,for amount claimed, andcoits 28s.—F. Collins v. Mrs Dearsley, £l- Is. Mr Neck for plaintiff, Mr Izird for defendant.—H. Marks v. F. Brady, claim £2O IDs ; judgment by default, and costs 30s. —J, Wright v. R. B. Bull, claim £4O ; judgment for plaintiff for £4O, and costs £llos ; immediate execution granted. Mr M’Connell for plaintiff. j Thursday, Jan. 30. . (Before G. L. Lee and J. P. Jameson, Esqs., J,E’s) ’ Civil Oases. —Sydenham Borough Council v. Shaw, claim £l-6s-3d ; judgment by default, and costs ss.—Same v. E. Round, claim £l 18s 6d; judgment by default, and costs ss. Same v. W. H. Miller, claim £2 6s 3d; judgment by default, and costs 5s. —Same v. 0. Childs, claim £1 18s 6d; judgment by default, and costa ss. Sydenham Borough Council v. James Burns, claim £1 10a lOd; judgment by default, and costs ss.—Same v, A. Baird, claim £l ; 7s 9d; judgment by default, and costs ss.—J. MerSon v. W. Hayes, claim £2 15s 7d; judgment for £—, 15s costs.—Same v. Christina flartle claim £5 5s 7d; judgment by default, and costs Bs.—W. Crabtree v. Agnes Raine, claim £6 8s 9i;,.judgment by default, and costs 8s. —P. iTCarlin v. E. Bush, claim £5 9s 6d; judgment by default, and costs 8s ;■ solicitor’s fed, £1 Is ; .Mr Izard for plaintiff.—E. M. Mein v. R. ; Lancaster, claim £lo 11s 3d; judgment by default, and costs 16s.—Mason, Strothers and Co. v. Rev H, Glaason, claim £l3lssd ; judgment by default for £l3 Is sd, and costs 15s.—C. Sexton v. H. E. Nathan, claim £6; judgment for plaintiff £4 and costs 10a; Mr Neck for plaintiff; Mr Slater for defendant. —W. J.^White v. W. Fitzgerald, claim £3 18s; judgment by default, and costs 6s. Friday, Jan. 31. • (Before G. L. Lee and F. Back, Esqs.) Larceny of Five Bottles of Wine.— ■ Richard Roberts and John F. Ormandy were charged on remand with stealing five bottles of wine belonging to Mr R. Walton. Mr Izard appeared for the accused. L. E. Nathan called, stated that on - Jan. 24 he found the bottle of wine produced in a cask in his store. The bottle was hidden among a lot of chips in the cask. Witness .spoke to one of his storemen named Patrick Skerrett, and the man immediately went out of witness’ sight. The bottle was found a little before three o’clock in the afternoon. had no wine of a similar kind on his premises. In cross examination, Mr Nathan said that Ormandy was in his employ as storeman for four years. With the exception of breaking out occasionally he was a good man, and boro an excellent character. Patrick Skerrett called, stated that he had been in Mr Nathan’s employ as storeman. After Mr Nathan had spoken to him about finding the bottle of wine, he went over to Mr Walton’s, where the accused were employed, and spoke to them about it. As there was a charge against accused, he was asked no farther questions. Richard Walton that both of the accused had been in his employ. From his attention being called to the fact, he missed some bottles of wine and recognised the bottle produced on Mr Nathan’s premises, which was similar to an ullage case he had in his store. After seeing the bottle of wine at Mr Nathan’s, witness spoke to Ormandy, who denied any knowledge of the matter. Roberts afterwards admitted to witness that he had given Skerrett the bottle of wine, but that he (Roberts) had bought and paid for it. In reply to witness, Roberts said he had bought it m the store, and had had it entered in witness’ books. He declined to tell witness at first where the other bottles were out of the case, but afterwards produced three empty bottles and said “we have drank them.” Ormandy was present at the time, and denied having had any of it. Roberts used very foul lan§uage, and Detective Walker took him away, übsequently witness had a conversation with Ormandy about the matter. He stated that they drank the first bottle at half-past 8 that morning, and gave witness to understand that he did not think Roberts had come by the wine in an improper manner. The value of the wine was 72s per dozen. In cross-examination witness said that Ormandy had always borne a good character, and disclaimed having taken the wine. Roberts admitted having taken the wine, but seemed to think that he had the right of taking everything out of the store, and having it entered to himself. There was nearly £2 10s owing to Roberts for wages. Witness said that in justice to Roberts ho ought to add that on previous occasions goods had been taken out of the store and entered to the storemen. Witness afterwards gave strict instructions that no goods were to be taken out and entered. Did not tell Roberts so, but the clerk. John Wachsman, clerk to Mr Walton, stated that both of the accused had been in Mr Walton’s employ. On Jan. 24 Roberts came to witness and asked him to make an entry against him for 5-12 tbs of champagne,- which witness did. It was about 3 o’clock at the time. This was the first witness had heard of the wine being taken. In -cross-examination witness said he knew that there were ullage cases of wine in the store. Witness had no intrnction at the time not to sell to storemen, but had since learnt that this should not be done. Witness debited Roberts with the amount.' There was a credit for wages in favour of the accused. Witness had debited himself with goods out of the store. By Inspector Hickson: I have never taken goods out of the store without first debiting myself with them. Detective Walker gave evidence of having arrested both of the accused. Roberts admitted having given a bottle of wine to Pat, which he said he had purchased. When witness was asking Roberts some questions, Ormandy warned him not to say anything to convict himself. He (Ormandy) asked Roberts in witness’ presence whether he had drunk any of the wine, and he replied, “I won’t say no for you.” Witness got the bottle of wine from Mr Nathan, and saw Roberts bring the empty bottles out of a corner in the store. Mr Izard called Mr A. Ayers, who gave Ormandy an excellent character. He had always believed Roberts to be a very respectable man. Mr Percy called also gave Ormandy a good character, and said he had always heard a very high opinion of Roberts. The Bench said there to no evidence against Ormandy, who was discharged. Mr Izard called Ormandy, who entered into the particulars of this wine. Roberts on the evening of Jan. 23, when they were sorting the goods in the store, spoke of buying a ullage case of wine, which was on the floor, as he was going to give. a spree, his sister being about to leave. Mr Lanauze, clerk to Mr Walton, stated that about three weeks before Jan. 24, Roberts spoke about baying this ullage case of wine, ■ saying what he wanted it for.- He asked witness to book it, hut witness said he could not, bixt he might see Mr Walton about it. After Mr Izard had addressed the Bench on behalf of Roberts, Mr Walton asked permission to -make a few remarks, and said that accused might have taken the wine thinking that as he.epoke about purchasing it previously, there was no harm in his taking it. Roberts had only been a short time in witness’ employ, and might not have been aware of the order given- to the previous storeman. The practice had obtained before; witness stopped it of the storeman taking away goods and booking them to himself. The Bench said that after Mr Walton’s remarks they would dismiss the charge; City By-Lavs.— John Rickerby, summoned&r carnringa passenger on the outside of his cab, ; having two inside at same time, was fined 10a and 2s edits.—Charles Colling fpr his horSeunattended at the railway station, - was. fined 10a.—Samuel Grimslade for. a similar offence was also fined 10s.,- Herman , Fohrmann, for obstructing Cambridge terrace by tethering a horse thereon, was fined’ 10k and costs. ■ ■ .

x,£&wjshs£ was was unfit for work.: Cons table Daley Jab. 1 7, the defendant'was w6mh| a corse with a milk-cart which'was badly girth-galled. When he spoke to defendant, he admitted that the horse was bad, but he could not help working him some-

times, as he had no other. There were two large sores under the girth. AMr Anderson called corroborated the constable’s evidence as to the condition the horse was in. His Worelup told defendant he was liable to a penalty of £2O under the now Act. • He would be fined 10s and costs 2s, and witness’ expenses, Bs.

Bathing- in View of a Public Place.-* John Steer, Wm. Quarterman, D. Wilson, W. M'Cormiok, and W. Skinner, live young Ik'is, were charged With bathing in the Domain enclosure within prohibited hours, on Jan. 10. The boys stated that they thought they could bathe at 6 o’clock. His Worship said the Domain Board intended to erect a notice board containing the hours. After that there would be no excuse. The oaso would bo dismissed.

Horses on the Railway.—John Judge, summoned for allowing two horses to wander on the railway line, was fined 10s. Pawnbroker’s Licence.—An application of Isaac Herman for a pawnbrokers license was adjourned for a week. Animals at Large.—For allowing horses, cattle, and sheep to wander at large, the! following persons wore each fined 6s ; and costs:—R. Pierce, Herman Fnhrmann, W. H. Barry, S. Manning, W. H. Wood, J.Gbodyer, A. C. Josling, D. Howard, L. Hamilton, F. Laurie (two informations), C. Dunford, Geo. Smith, J. Bralazon. LYTTELTON. Saturday, Feb. 1. (Before J. T. Rouse and H. Allwright, Esqs.) Refusal of Duty.—Eleven Lascars forming part of the crew of the barque Florence were charged with this offence. The accused had signed articles in Calcutta where they joined the vessel, to go to any port or ports in the north or south Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. The vessel is bound to London, and'accused refuse to go in her stating that they did not sign articles to go there. The men went ashore to. see a Magistrate in Lyttelton concerning the matter, and then went 15 Christchurch on a similar errand without leave, walking over the hill, where they were arrested for being absent from the ship. The Bench told accused that they must go on board or else go to gaol, whereupon they Said they would not go on board the ship and preferred going to prison. Sentenced to 14 days’ hard labour each. TIMARU. Saturday, Feb. 1. (Before R. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Lunacy from Drink.—James Donnelly, on remand, was committed to the Lunatic Asylum.—Edward Seath, also brought up on a charge of luaaoy, was remanded for a week for medical treatment.