MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5599, 4 February 1879, Page 6

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Feb. 3. (Before G. L. Lee, Esq., and Dr Back.) DauNKKNNßfis,— Three first-offenders were each fined ss. John Woodward was fined ss. —Charles Roans, who had been given “ another chance" a few days previously, now pleaded for “just once more.” The Bench said there were, already three this year, and accused would now. he imprisoned for one month. William Thompson was'fined I NDBOBNCY. —John Duncan was charged with behaving; himself indecently, and with using obscene language within hearing of a public place. Accused desired to admit the pfftnee, which had occurred in Cashel street east. Evidence, however, was given, showing that the act was a deliberate one, and that accused was not so drank that he did not know what he was doing. One of the witnesses remonstrated with him, and was subjected to very abusive language. The charge of using obscene language was dismissed, but for acting indecently accused was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labour. False Pbetsnoes. —Archibald Moorhead was brought up on remand, on the charge of falsely representing.himself to be a detective, for the purpose of securing a benefit or advantage, MrR. D.,.Thomas again appeared for the accused, and requested that au, witnesses should be ordered out of Court. James Baker deposed that he was walking through the park with a young woman, who, becoming tired, sat down on the grass and took her boot off. Accused and another man came up, and one said he must see further into this —he had seen what they were doing, and had to look after the Park; The speaker added that he did not . want to be hard. Witness could not swear which of the two men spoke. When the two men firstpasaed, one said: “ Are you sick, mate ?” Witness replied in the negative, and the men! went on a few steps. They turned back, struck a light, and said: “We must see further into this; we can see you have been up to something.” Moorhead said he was a detective, and asked for their names. Witness gave his name. The young woman who was referred to was called, and said it was prisoner who said “We won’t be hard on you,” Detective Walker deposed that prisoner said, “ It was only for a lark; ’’ he knew nothing against the accused. Mr Thomas, for the defence, contended that although accused had acted foolishly in saying He was a detective, that no offence whatever had been committed. The Bench said the case would be dismissed, but they would strongly recommend the accused not to do anything of the kind again. If he did, he might not get off so easily. Assault. — F. Peiper was charged with having on Jan. 24, at Lincoln road, violently assaulted William Gosnell, Bailiff of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch. Mr Neck appeared for the defendant, and on his behalf desired to apologise for the outburst of temper. His client tendered a cheque which was declined. He then went out and got it cashed, and on hia return the Bailiff made a charge of Bs. This the accused thought excessive, and gave way to a sudden outbreak of temper, for which he was very sorry, and he would willingly pay the costs.. Mr M'Knight said he did not desire to press the case. Case dismissed with a caution on payment of costs, and expenses of a witness.

Breach oe Sbaughtee-House Act.— Thomas Hiekling was charged with having slaughtered lambs without being duly licensed to do so. The Inspector of Slaughter-yards to the Selwyn County Council deposed that there had been numerous ..complaints about butchers slaughtering within the limits, of the town, and he had great difficulty in securing a case, because the slaughtering was done at night. The offence in question had occurred in Armagh street east. Accused admitted the offence, and pleaded that he had only killed two pet lambs. The Inspector was instructed to press for a penalty. Accused formerly had a license, but lad not one at the present time. Mr Pepperell deposed tint on Jan. 8 (aprevious occasion), accused did some killing, some sheep and calves, and witness called bus attention to the matter. Accused replied that witness might do his best and his worst. The Bench said it was a pity an information had not sooner been laid. The present charge was aggravated by the fact that accused had been warned. He would be fined 40s, and he might be reminded that if he offended again he would be subjected in all probability to the full penalty of £lO. Accused was also ordered to pay costs 9s, and expenses of two witnesses Bs. Abusive Language. John Dalwood was charged with having,, on January 9, at Christchurch, used abusive and threatening language towards Edward P. Cogan. Mr J. S. Williams appeared for the complainant, and Mr Neck for the accused, who is a cabman, Mr Williams first addressed the Bench, stating that his client had filed a declaration of insolvency, but had promised to pay £5 due to defendant, as soon as possible. Not satisfied with this, the accused had taken every opportunity of publicly annoying the complainant, even going so far as to express a desire to tear the coat off his back Complainant now deposed that he was willing to pay accused the money due to him, but that he told the man he could not legally make him a preferential creditor, a solicitor having so instructed him. Were he permitted to do so, he would gladly pay the money at once. On the date in question, Jan. 9, accused had twice stopped mm in the street, and had threatened to tear the coat off his back. Mr Neck questioned complainant as to various dates, his queries feeing objected to, but the Bench on being appealed to, ruled that the question must be answered. Complainant then stated that on a certain occasion accused asked him for the money, and was simply referred to the Trustee. Complainant's reason for not paying the £5 was simply that he had not secured his certificate of discharge. The Bench remarked that there was another information, relating to Jan. 24, and they would hear the two cases together. It appeared that on the last date, accused said, “ Well, I shall meet you by yourself some day, and then I’ll take my £6 out of you.” He also said that ho would take the opportunity of insulting complainant when he was• with some gentlemen. E, H. Brooker, a cabman, gave borroboirative evidence of the fact that oh Jan, 9 accused drove over to the complainant, and spoke rather loudly to him. At a distance of over a chain, witness could hear them talking, though he could not distinguish the words. Mr Neck addressed the Bench, contending that his client had never intended to ' injure the, complainant in any way. Accused, on being sworn, said that complainant absolutely refused to pay the money, and that he thereupon declared he would ask him for the [ money every time he saw him. In cross-

examinatidn, the witness'admitted Jtttat hft, had beenlkbid of the Insolvency, and thatbe had been referred to the trustee. .Mr Williams asked that, the aooused shoMd be bound over to; keep tßr peaoe._ The Benoh held it to be qidtei clear that theabuaive language and the -threats had he® n , Accused must be perfeotly aware that ho had no right to ask for menoy in that way. amo i Bench did; not think there > would necessity;for, binding.accused over. anout no. : would promise to retrain fromiurther annoyance, the comparatively small fine of 10s and oosts l4s would be imposed, with expenses or one witness, s*. Accused, as he went °ve»topaj)r the money, remarked," Thdte —Frank Lewis was charged with luring, on Jan. 18, in Colombo street, used abusive language to John Squire. Mr Slater appeared for the complainant, and Mr Percival tor the accused.. Evidence; having been , given as to the language used, Mr Percival proposed to show that this was a partnership quarrel, and that the abusive language was justifiable in a sense. In reply to Mr Sinter complainant said ho entered into the partnership which had boon referred to, on Sept. 9, putting in £BSO. > The partnership was dissolved on last Friday, and witness had to take out just one guinea. : Mr Basnford gave corroborative evidence of the language used, which, was, “You —“ wreteh, 1U break your —— neck, you villain, you scoundrel.” The. aeonsed on being sworn, said ho and * his girls were shut out of the shop by the complainant; in the passion ' that he was in he ', did not know what he was saying. • The Bench remarked upon the time that was being wasted by irrelevant questions, they considered the offence clearly proved and imposed a fine’ of 10s, with caste lls, and expansesl of witness 6s. A second case.was withdrawn!•' - . Assault. —Frank Lewis,; the defendant m the last case, was charged with having; on Jan. 14, assaulted Richard Clark. Mr Neck was for the complainant, and Mr Percival for the defendant. The statement made by the defendant, was, to the effect that he went to the shop with Mr Squire, and that accused, after abusing and threatening him, took him by the shoulders and put him out. John Squire gate corroborative evidence. Albert Williams. deposed to hearing had language used by accused on the occasion ,in question, but he sawrio<assault. For this defence, - Constable Beaumont stated that about three weeks;;ago, ho was called in by Mr Lewis to turn, out a man. . 'dark.was in the shop, and went out when he-was-spoken to, without being touched.' He 1 made no complaint of having been assaulted.: Mary; Maule, who was employed in the shop, was called,>but could not remember the date of the alleged assault. She Md not been absent from the shop between 8/and 9 o’clock. - Complainant re-called, said the assault was committed about lialf-past 9, the constable being sent for afterwards. Constable Herald was -now called, and deposed that he Was called to the shop on the -evening in question, when Clark was drank, but not quite incapable. Lewis pat him ontj bat used no unnecessary violence in doing so. Constable Kerr, who was present, with the last witness gave similar evidence* Clark was under the influence of drink. Case dismissed with costs.—Elizabeth Stevenston was charged with having, on Jan. 80, violently assaulted a lad named J,. 0. Stead. Mr Thomas ftpSpeared for the accused. Complainant deposed that on the date named he was working in Mr Da Beer’s garden, when he saw a little girl,’ a daughter of the accused, taking some plums. ''He -went to her, and took her tp Mr Da Beef, and then her mother com-; mitted the assault complained of. In crossexamination witness said the fence between Mr De Beet’s and Mrs Stevenston’s was as high as his head, there being no place where the little girl could get through. Witness carried her in his arms to Mr De Beer, who said she . was to be let go. Two children being called forward, witness oould not swear whioh was the one, but thought it was 'the big one. When the little girl went back to the fence, she was lifted over,-and Mrs Stevenston, who was; standing there, told witness she would “knock his -— : brains out. She threw a stone, which out his head. T. De Beer, deposed that he. had spoken to Mr Stevenston: ■ about fruit which had been taken from Mg; garden in Armagh . street east. On the dftte named, his boy brought.in a little girl be had found under a pluml tree. It was not the younger of the two children, so far as he rememherecl. (Mr Thomas here informed the Bench tha,t an information had beenlaid against one of the two children for stealing fruit.) Witness told the boy to take the child down the garden and help her over the fence, so that she might not be hurt. For thpdefence, Susan Stevenston, an elder sister of the two Utile girls, deposed that on the date named the little one was standing oh some bricks by the fence, when the boy who had given evidence pulled Upr over the fence and carried her under hip am .straight into Mr Deßoer’s house. ..When ho brought her back, her mothgr told the boy he was naughty to take her into that House. The Bench. thought it scarcely worth while to go further with the the wise, there was. nothing in proof of, any assault. Mr Thomas said he was prepared to prove by a number of witnesses that- the charges were utterly . malicious. The little child, three years of age, was lifted deliberately over the fence, carried into the house, and then taken back again. The Bench would at once dismiss both charges, costs to follow the dismissal. Mr Thomas now pointed out that the Bench power to order payment of the solicitor’s ;fce- The Bench, taking into consideration the utterly unfounded nature of the chargqs, ordered that the solicitor’s fee should be paid by complainant. Fuhious D B rviNG.—James M'Master, of Woolston, was charged with having, on Jan. 22, furiously driven a horse and vehicle along the Ferry road. Henry Lake deposed that on the date named, accused, who was under the influence of drink, drove along at a furious pace with a loaded vehicle, lashing the horse with his whip. This was by the cutting where the drainage works were in progress, and the lives of the workmen were endangered by the conduct of the accused. Mr Summerhayes, foreman in charge of the Ferry road works, gave corroborative evidence, stating that accused, was lashing his horse most violently, , and that he was certainly under the influence of drink. The belly-band was.hanging down. Theßenoh said the case had been fully proved, and accused could m)t be allowed to do that sort of thing with impunity. He would be fined 40s and 7s costs.

LYTTELTON. Monday Feb. 3. (Before J. T. Bouse andH. Allwright, Esqs.) Drunkenness and Creating a Disturbance in A Public House,— O.Eylan, arrested by Constable Coles, was charged with this offence and fined 10s. ClTli. OASES.— George Atkinson v. William Biley, claim £2O. Mr H. N. Nalder for plaintiff, Mr Joyce for defendant. This was an action brought to recover the sum of £2O for wages alleged to be due by defendant, who is the proprietor of the Lyttelton Herald, to plaintiff, an employee on that journal. Plaintiff stated that he was engaged by the defendant as Editor of the Port Lyttelton Herald. He was. engaged .first as canvasser at £3 for the first week, the defendant promising to give him his full value for every week afterwards. I started as editor of the paper at the time of its second 1 issue, I wrote the leading articles, both Readers and locals. I applied to Mr Biley on several occasions for payment of my wages. He said he was negotiating a loan, and offered me £l2 in payment of my claim, I refused to. take that amount; 1 consider that my charge of £6 per week as editor of the paper is q very moderate charge. ‘ I charged £3 per week os canvasser. Mr Biley always expressed himself as satisfied with my wqrk. Mr Biley on Wednesday last offered. to compromise the matter for £2O cash, and to give me a three months' engagement at £3los per week. A compositor is under engagement .the office at £4 per week.; By. Joyce; I have never been editor‘ of a. paper pefpre. X4id not engage myself., as a bookkeeper. The paper would never have been' brought out if it' had hot been for, me. The paper has been , issued ten times. Mr Biley wrote the first .article, I have written

five leading . articles and two sub-leaders. T have not written any articles that have not appeared. ' I wrote an article for the flwt issue of the paper, but Mr Riley inserted the one he wrote instead. Mr Riley promised to nav all mv expenses while canvassing for him. Shave not kept an account of what I have expended while conducting Mr Rileys business in Christchurch. Before I came here it was customary for me to spend money for the paper I was engaged upon while looking after its business, I have spent £4 while I looking after Mr Riley’s business. I do inot know whether the paper has been 1 a paying concern. I have been about 4 years connected with journalism, and about 2} ▼ears before that was in a lawyer s office. Re-examined by Mr Nalder: I wrote aU the local matter as well as the leading articles, and saw the paper out at every publication. iW. Eastwodth 1 am a compositor at the ■ Herald office, and am paid £4 per week. Mr Atkinson has been writing for the paper; ;he did all the writing except _ the shipping. On Monday last Mr Atkinson, ,and Mr Riley had a conversation regardling the account, and I recommended IMr Atkinson Jto take £lB in payment of his I claim. There was. an offer made to keep Mr Atkinson on for three months at £3 per week; he was to do the shipping work, book keeping, ! canvassing, and to go to Christchurch on off days, to conduct the business of the paper at ; his own expense. Mr Atkinson refused £3 ; per week, and it was agreed to go on at £8 10a. The paper was not paying, and the course adopted was to reduce expenses. There has not been much local matter in the paper; : a 'large number of the locals were cribbed from the Christchurch papers, besides dippings. I have been on newspapers for some time, and consider that,£6 per week is far too 1 much to pay for the services rendered by Mr Atkinson. When Mr Riley offered to engage him at £8 10s per week. Mr Riley said that Mr Atkinson wm not to write any more leading articles, as the/ Vdisgraoe to the paper. Mr Atkinson, certainly did not manage’lhe paperl refused a quantity of his manui script as not worth putting in. The paper is : a bi T weekly paper. : H. Morgan, a compositor, ; was examined, and stated he was paid £3 per week. He only knew Mr Atkinson as supplying the compositors with copy. I do riot know what his other duties were. Wm, Riley: lam a printer and- proprietor of the Lyttelton Herald. . On Deo. 19 plaintiff was introduced;mej and I. engaged him to assist in (Hb riaper. I offered to engage him at'£2los, arid he said that He would do the full canvassing and editorial work for £3 per week. I Had a man in Christchurch doing the work there at £2 10s. 1 used to give plaintiff 6s every time he went to Christchurch to pay for his train and other expenses. At plaintiff’s request I ordered the books, and . they arrived in the office on Jan. 14. There is no entry in the , ledger, and the day book is entered up to Jan. 18. The order book has been posted up recently. His duty was to post up the books. I agreed to pay plaintiff £3 per week. We had no further conversation about salary until about; Jan. 27, when I gave him £5. At.that time, plaintiff offered to resume his duties for £3 10s, and pay his expenses to Christchurch, There was no understanding 1 about a quarterly engagement. When I asked him to go to Christchurch bn Friday, he refused. I then told him that unless he went and looked after the commercial part of the business he was of no use at all, as he had no leaders to write. When I asked him to go to Christchurch, ho asked me about ; money, and I inferred he meant his back wages. ! Plaintiff never gave any account of the £3 charged as expenses. By Mr Nalder: When the new arrangement was made I offered , plaintiff £lB in settlement of his claim of £3l. £5 was to be paid down in cash, and the balance in two or three Rays, The £5 was paid. When I asked plaintiff to go to , Christchurch he said he wanted money. He had been with me for six weeks, and had drawn £B. I have taken a quantity of Mr Atkinson’s manuscript off the file, as I did not consider it -good enough to appear. ,Fbr'the first two weeks I was satisfied with jMr Atkinson’s work as a canvasser. I hare -been;connected with newspapers for years in i various capacities, and was proprietor of a newspaper on the West Coast when I paid the person who did the editorial work 30s per week. Defendant having addressed the Bench, ; judgment was given for.£l4lss and costs. AKAROA , , Pbiday, Jan. 31. •’ (Before Justin Aylmer, Esq., R.M.) Abusive Language.—F. Anning was charged by Margaret Nixon with an offence of this nature. Case dismissed. Labceny.— Erasmus Jorgensen, remanded from Jan; 28, was charged with larceny from a dwelling,' Constable Smart, stationed at Little River; deposed to arresting the prisoner iat the Head of the Bay, Akaroa, on Monday, ; Jan. 27, and that on searching him he found a pocket-book containing a bank deposit for £9O, a parse with two £1 notes, a half-sovereign, and nine shillings. After he Had conveyed him to the lock-up the prisoner admitted haring taken the things. Peter Sorensen stated that he lived at Little River. Left home about 7 o’clock on Monday morning, Jan. 27. Left his coat hanging in the bedroom. There was a purse and pocketbook in the breast pocket; in the book was a bank receipt for £9O, The receipt produced is the same. He also had three £1 notes in the purse, together with a half-sovereign and some silver. Witness came home about six o’clock, and after tea missed the purse and pocket-book. He at once gave information to the poHce. Basmin Sorensen, wife of the last witness, deposed to prisoner coming to the house on the day mentioned. He came about half-past 12 and stayed about an hour. Had occasion to leave him in the house for a short time. No one else came to the house on that day. The prisoner, who said he had nothing to say, was then committed for trial. The prisoner was then charged with having stolen a saddle and bridle, and, on the application of the police, was remanded to Christchurch. Civil Cases.— T. Adams v. W. Kenny, claim £32 18s 6d; judgment for amount claimed and costs.—J. Beecher v. J. Bassett, claim £ll 7s 6d; judgment by consent, to be paid at the rate of £2 per month.—F. Anning r. J. Nixon, claim £lO 8s lid: judgment by default.