MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5601, 6 February 1879, Page 7

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH, Feu. 5. Lb^~' ? fc °‘ L> MelUsb > RM-) Thompson, who iosfora ? nl -T goiri ® about look- %. rr ■ a was fined firs ’- oiCwV , d fined 10s. A fined E;?' nC D°? [ taac Butterfield “Wiat...? , ? Eo ,-' !e brought forward T* T Ulr 'g let off, that a with \^ 5 to send her np Wta i, * f fr hter - She *enW] labour? is imprisonment with ?‘fii usir.o Sr? avid was charged “ h , n^ e > “ d w ‘tii beW':!i of the r r td tldateb 10 provoke a . Kng of .Professor Scott, of P e lecluriuj, on ft ntL depo6ed that as n be preTlOU3 caning j n J baf 3ng. th e accused commenced 1)19 carnal tlmC ’ witness got down n > w Wa^m ß i to expostulate with the a t a^ the crowd : and the Rr ? n toneß and eggs were i?! f,Jr the into,/ was a ver y rough one, lh USt ' l Wr -*uld , "r ° f i 1 ! 10 P° lice ’ the r? f,J *d, which l bte “. rou g hl J bandied by & } - D ttcc h e B e ! n ' mated at 10W p? k %rro r ! l f- 3amm and Sergeant t d ence; tho &tter I eton es a bis head from one I A!? EEir -n oi ihc P 9ed Was Cncd 20sI wcm^ J ° hn 1 WUson aDd I bi c=t?| a breach of the n UVrged wb b comI Wii- k. There , P cace m view of a I ei e !. J , n of faulting Crm f°w C, ? ar S e a gainst I ° f bis luty Tb 0 Cr ° nin tho I Wilson !! tßlde tiie Whi a f cased w ere I Growing himself a Urt ? lo tel, and I H?7 le m the down > kicked the Rto als ° spat over tv ol * o1 * and elsewhere, I « epit-U Bte elf "brie on"*^ 16 “ ordci ‘ I , af t was L way to the I n| ll ' eu to of t/ 36 ' 11 ®’ for^ I^Bol- Was I *5 A*-n-i

De tec tire Benjamin stated that he had recently warned D&nby several times that if he did not dear out he would be brought up for vagrancy. There had been numerous complaints about him. 'i'ho agent for the property having given evidence, Parker and Daaby pleaded that they were drunk. Detective Welker was then called, and said he know Parker particularly well as a notorious thief and pickpocket. His main object was to get hold of drunken men, and—acting in concert with low prostitutes—to rob them. Danbv had been pretty quiet lately. His Worship said the list of convictions against Parker was quite sufficient to show that ho had better be taken care of. For the last sis Jean he had been getting into trouble. As, owever, he had not been up for some time, he—with the others—would bo given a chance. The accused would be sentenced each to 43 hours' imprisonment.

A Fjknsa RaPBEasNTATioN.—-William John Lererton was charged with having, by means of a false representation, and for his own benefit or advantage, imposed upon » private individual. Ur Neck appeared far the accused. Richard Henry Clark deposed that ho was a butcher, residing at Waltham. On Nov. 8 last, he was in Hagicy Park with a young woman, between 8 and 9 o’clock in the evening, when the accused and another man came up. Accused stepped up to witness, and said, —“ Now, young man, what are you doing hereP You are here for an improper purpose, and you must give me your name, or go with mo to the depAh” Witness said, ** Well, who are you, what’s your name?” Accused replied,—“ My name’s Williams, and I am the night watchman of the gardens, in the employ of the Government. Do you know what you’ll be fined P Why, £5; but we know what £5 is.” Witness, dreading that the yonng woman who was with him might have to appear in Court, then asked accused to take the £5 and let the matter drop. He said he had not much money on mm then, but he would give accused what he him, and would afterwards meet him at any time or place he liked to appoint. Accused, having spoken to the man who was with him, agreed to take the money, and witness then gave him all the small change he had—excepting a threepenny piece —amounting to 10s. They arranged to meet at the Golden Age Hotel at ten o’clock on the following morning, and they did meet, at the time and place appointed. Witness said: “ I suppose you know what I’ve come about; where’s your mate ?” Accused replied that he had not turned np j and witness then said, “ When I do square up with you it will be when yon are both together.” Witness then left, and on Anniversary night, being in company with his brother, he found accused standing at his elbow in the crowd. He called hu brother’s attention to the circumstance, and the brother immediately said, "Look here, old man, you’d better hand over that 10s.” Accused wanted them to go away and have it out quietly, an offer which they declined. Subsequently witness was called on an which, singularly enough, happened to be on this man’s child, and he then learned who the man was, and where he lived. Recently he saw the report of a similar case in the papers, and he then called upon accused, but the man did not seem to mind much. In reply to questions as to what he was prepared to do, accused said that at any rate he had not got the IQs, far that was shared with his mate. On a subsequent occasion, witness was driving past the house, and made another call. The man and his wife came out, and wanted to smooth the thing over, offering witness some game fowls aa a set off-for toe 10s. The offer was declined. In reply to His Worship, witness said he had not then threatened to prosecute, as he wanted to find out who the man’s mate was. Accrued apparently at the time of the occurrence only wanted to make money, and the other man seemed to be rather inclined for something else; witness thought he wanted to get away with the girl, for the man said to her,—“The best thing yon can do is to skedaddle,” and when she went away witness believed the man followed her. In reply to Mr Neck, witness said that taking it for granted that the man was what he represented himself to be, be thought it best to give b»m something. Witness believed that h< uid Detectiva Benjamin -was down by the bridge, bur did not remember his mentioning any other officer, or saying that if those officers found him it would go hard with him. Accused did not say that the conduct of witness had been disgraceful; he did not moralise at aIL Accused had never applied for the balance of the money. Witness would have paid the money in Ms owp way, certainly not without a formal document, saying what it was being paid for, and not without having a witness. When the fowls were spoken about, witness was only anxious to find oat who the mate was—very anxious. It might be only a little curiosity, but even now he would very much like to know who the man was. He thought that if it were possible to find him, from what be had heard, it would go hard with that man, —be a very bad case with him. Mr Neck here requested to know the reason witness had for thinking so. Witness was directed not to answer the question. In reply to Mr Neck’s questions witness resumed: He might have been in the Park twenty minutes or half-an-hour. When he called the accused a “ d scoundrel” on Anniversary night, witness had found out that he was not what he had represented himself to be. Was certain it was not the other man who represented himself to be the night watchman. It was this man who did aU the talking, and negotiated for the money. To Inspector Hickson: He met me the next morning at the place appointed. To Mr Neck: Witness told accused that to come to any settlement he would have to give back the 10s, and tell who bis mate was; he refused to do so. Witness wanted him to sign a statement that he had obtained money by a false representation. —John Clarke, brother of the last witness, gave corroborarative evidence of what had occurred on Anniversary night. Witness said to the man, “ You had better hand over that 10s you took from my brother,” and he replied, “ If you want anything, you had better come out into the paddock,” meaning that he would fight. To Mr Neck: Witness beard his brother use bad language to the man.—Mr Armstrong deposed that he was the Curator of the Domain and Parks, and that accused was not, nor ever had been, in his employ j nor was he ever authorised to act in any way. Detective Walker deposed that he arrested accused on the warrant produced. On the way to the station witness said; "You should have told Clarke who your mate was.” Accused replied; “ So help me ——, I did not know. Isaw him there spotting them, and I joined him.” This closed the evidence. Mr Neck addressed the Beach, urging that Ids client was a respectable man, who had never before been in a police court. That he and another man saw an act of immorality in the Domain, and that thereupon some conversation took place. The mouth of the accused was of course shut up now, but Mr Neck was instructed that his client bad made no such representation as had been imputed to him, and that the 10s was voluntarily given as hush money. Nor was there any evidence of a previous conspiracy. He must contend that under subsection 8 of section 4, of the Vagrant Act, this man did not attempt to impose by a fraudulent representation. The meeting at the Golden Age was not the act of a guilty man, and from that time till now, the accused had never asked for the balance of the money which the complainant had voluntarily offered to give, and indeed had begged accused to accept. Of the Vagrant Act, it had been said that if you stretched it far enoughyou could hang a man under its provisions. Whatever was done in this case, was done .on (he spur of the moment, and if accused committed a little fault in takingtho money, it was to bo hoped that the Bench would look over it, and not eend this man to what Mr Justice Johnston had called one or tiie Normal Schools for crime. Inspector Hickson, referring to some of the remarks which hod fallen from Mr Neck, said he was prepored, if necessary, to prove clearly that there had in this case been no act of immorality, nor anything of the kind. Tn® only thing was that the complainant wa ß anxious not to have the young girl’ B haino brought before the public. His Worship considered the facts of the ’case to be clearly proved. There was not thd slightsst doubt In

his mind, from the manner -in which the evidence hod been given, that the statement made bv the complainant was correct in every particular. He felt perfectly certain that it was correct, too, in this particular, that accused had elicited the promise of £5, and had obtained 10s on account, in consequence of his representation that ho was a night watchman accompanied hr a covert threat of bringing some unstated charge against tho parties. It might bo correct that ho had joined the other van unpremeditatedly, but. at the same time there was no doubt that ho took the money, and that he induced the witness for the prosecution to give that money by a false representation. As his counsel had stated, his character might have been good previously, but it was questionable whether such an act could lead one to think very highly of him. That he had obtained the money as stated was very clear, though there was no reason why it should have been given. Mr Neck trusted that the fine would be made aa low as possible. Hie Worship replied that there was no question of fine in this ease. Accused had been guilty of a disgraceful and die* creditable action, for which he was hable to a year's imprisonment with : hard labour, As, however, nothing was known against him Sreviously he would only be sentenced to seven ays' imprisonment with hard labour..

LYTTELTON. WBDNBfIDAt, FbD. 6. (Before J. T. Bouse and H. Allwright, Esqs.l Stowaway.—Alex. Mitchel was charged by Captain Punch, of the brig Argos, with stowing away : on board his vessel on her leaving Sydney. The Bench ordered accused to pay the amount of the passage money, £6, together with a fine of £2, or in default four weeks’bard labour. The civil oases set down for hearing were adjourned until 11 a.m. on Saturday. KAtAPOI. WBDKSBDAY, FBB. 8. (Before His Worship the Mayor.) IddkqAilY on Pbbmibbs.—Charles Dean was charged with this offence. Constable Johnston proved that at half-past 10 p,m. bn Tuesday last he arrested the accused in Mr John Sims* stable, where he was lying drunk. Accused promised if dismissed he would go to work at once at Mr Dixon’s, where he was harvesting. Fined 10s and costs, or 48 hours’ imprisonment. Yagbakct.—Two lads, George lidmonds and Thomas George, were charged .with vagrancy by Constable Johnston, who stated that from information received he went to the Girder Bridge; where he found the two boys loafing about a tent inhabited by the contractor far the repairs to the bridge. The contractor had informed Mm that he had missed articles from tho tent, and had seen boys creeping out of the tent. He then searched the boys in the presence of the complainant, but found nothing. After hearing the evidence of the complainant and a workman named Henry Williams, His Wor-. ship, addressing Edmonds, , said he felt sure he bad been led away by the other lad. He would, - therefore; 'dismiss the care on condition Ms father dealt with M®-. - Hus Worship then cautioned George very impressively, and. stated that to give Mm s chance of Improving he would dismiss the ease, and hoped that his father would give Mm a severe whipping. If he was brought np again he would bo very severely ■ dealt with by the Bench.

TEMABU. Txtbsday.Fbb. 4. (Before R; Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Cmi, Casks.— J. Levein v. 0. W. Wood, claim £45 ; judgment far plaintiff for £3 16s, and costs. —Bennett v. Alpress and r Son, claim £25 15s 6djudgment was entered for the plaintiff far £l3 & 6d? plaintiff to pay costs. —Judgment for the plaintiff was entered in each of the fallowing cases -.—Mrs Hope v. S. Robertson, claim £ll 5s Id; W. Eames V. E. H. Maynord, claim £3 10s Id; A. Spence v. T. Higgins, claim £4los; A. Spence v. B. Reece, claim £5; Same v. Hiekie, claim; £1 10s; £. Reece and Co. v. T._ G. Fyfe, claim 4s 4d; Same v. Lumsden, claim £7 lie; E. Acton r. H. J. Boss, claim £8 13«.—1n a judgment summons case," Mrs Whallye v. John Malley, claim £5 16s fid, order was made for payment of debt and costs atl the rate of £1 per week, or one month’s imprisonment in default.