MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5604, 10 February 1879, Page 6

MAGISTERIAL.

OHEI3ICHCROI. Satubdat, Feb, 8.

(Before GK LesliaLee, Esq., R.M., and His Worship the Mayor). DauNKBKtfESa. —A first offender pleaded that although a little intoxicated, she was not incapable. She was fined ss. Lahcent.— Ann Stubber afield, a married woman, was charged with the larceny of a pair of boots, valued at 8s fid, the property of William Archibald. The complainant deposed that he was a shoemaker, residing in Colombo street south, and that about 4.80 the previous evening he saw prisoner take a pair of boots off a nail near the door of his shop. He stopped the woman when she was crossing the railway, and said—" Xou’ve got a pair of my hoots.’’ She replied that the boots were her own; she had bought them. The wife of witness took the boots from accused, who was brought up to thedepdt. Accused had not been inside the shop; Mr Neck, who appeared for the accused, only elicited the facts that the shoes were ticketed, and that the woman secreted them under her shawl; Also, that the woman told witness that she had had two Or three glasses at a friend’s house, and that she . really did not know what she had been doing. Witness, addressing the Bench, asked that accused should be leniently dealt with, as. he believed this was the first time she had ever so offended. !Mr Neck urged that clemency should be shown to his client, who was a woman with six children. In reply to the Bench; accused Said there was no doubt she had the boots, but she could not recollect haying- taken them. Some brandy was S' yen her, and it overcame her. Inspector ickson said nothing previously had been known against accused. The Bench remarked upon the grevidhs offence which the accused had committed —especially for a woman in her condition. They could not pass the matter over, hut in consideration of the wish by the prosecutor, and of the fact that there had been nothing against the accused previously, she would be imprisoned for seven days only. Had she not given way to drink, in all probability she would not be placed in this position, and it would bo well for her to refrain from drinking in future, lest she should fall into some-greater evil. The .Chairman of the Bench desired to express his opinion that tradesmen, by their practice of exposing goods outside their doors and windows, exposed people to needless temptation. His Worship the Mayor concurred, and added that the general public had, often to incur large expense for * prosecutions, because of the cupidity - of tradesmen in exposing their wares outside their places of business. Inspector Hickson was glad to hear these expressions of opinion from-the Bench. He might remark that the police had proceeded against tradesmen only in extreme cases;; if all instances were to be dealt with, the police would be. looked upon as adopting a system of persecution, and' it was to be remembered that they could take action only in cases where there was- an obstruction of the footpath. When goods were hung up against doors and windows, the question of an obstruction being caused became a very nice point. The matter was one that rested for the most pari - with the tradesmen themselves, and perhaps tpe publicity which doubtless would be given to what was now being said, might have some good result. He would add that he did not think there was any City in the Australasian Colonies where there was so much reckless exposure of goods, both by night and day, as in Christchurch, many of the tradespeople not even taking the trouble to put up shuttors. ■ '

Lascent op Machinery. David Gray, alihs M'Kellop, was charged with the larceny of machinery, . the property of Messrs Wood, Shand, and Co., from the section of . land at the corner of Hereford street and Oxford terrace, inspector Hickson explained that accused had been caught in the act; of removing a portion of some expensive machinery. -The portion in question did not represent all that had been lost, and it would be desirable that the accused, who was an old offender, should' be remanded for a week, so as to give time for inquiries to be made.; The Bench concurred in this view, and remanded prisoner for a week. ■ ■ v ; r TtTMi>i*, ! Ebb. 4. -v (Bef6raJ3vL. Hellish, Esq., 8.M.) Cm* CABkB.-W. Moir and Co. y. G; Mackay, claim „ £9 8s 6d; judgment for ,6d.—W. Atkinson v.iF. Carter,' claim £29j judgment for plaintiff for £2B, costs & £*> schcjtor’s fee £3 Bs, two witnesses 20s. MrLpughnan for plaintiff, and Mr Thomas for defendant.-rD. How ▼. H. Deakin, claim £6; judgment for plaintiff for £6, to be reduced to nit if sadolo be returned on demand, costs 10s, solicitor’s lies £1 Is. Mr Holmes for plaintiff, Mr Harper for defendont.—Oity/pouncil t. J. S. M. Jacobsen, oWm £118s ( « j judgment forjOaintifl for ataouxrt chimed, and costs Be.—Oity Council 7’ J %^ 00 f. man » & 18s 4d j judgment default, and costs (founoU v. A Mennes. °laim £l° 8s lid } judgment by default, and costs 165.-City ChOT mm B* ClMkbi ohUh £8 Is 4d| judgment by default,, and costs Is.—Oity CtounoU * r. W. Atkinson, mim £8 r, Li 4?; judgment by default, and costs I7s.~City Council y, J, PcMy, : olaim£3,lds Bd,' judmnentbvdflgSMSSK judgment by default, ahd & *** lo * 1

WITDUHSDAT, EBB. 6. ' (Before G. I». Hellish, E «y 8.M.) Oiviii Oabeb. —0. Clarke t. J. G, Claw, claim £IOO j judgment for plaintiff for £IOO, costs £ll7s, solicitor’* fee £3 B*. Mr Neck tot plaintiff, Mr Harper for defendant.^—Mr* B. Walsh r. E. M'CaUum, claim £lßlß* Ud } judgment for plaintiff for £lO 17e 6d, cost* 16s, solicitor’s fee £2 2s. Mr laud for. plaintiff, Mr Slater for defendant. ■—Mason, Strothers, and Co. t. H. Pirth, dsbaflSs W ? judgment by default, and costs 6s.—Wood, Hhand, and 00. r, A. Barrows, claim £25 8s; judgment by default for £25 Bs, costs 80s.-" Same r. A. S. Gilchrist) claim £2 10*} judgment by default, and costs ssj—Watt and Co. r. S . Wilson, claim. £B2 6s .10d j judgment hr default, and costs £1 16s.—A. Thompson r. J. A. Self, claim£loo{ judgment by default, and costs £2. ■ . ■

Thubbdat, Fee. 6. Civil Oases.—-City Cornual. y. O. Mpnson, claim £l9 8s 4d; plaintiff non-suited, solicitors foe £2 2s, costa Ifis., Dr Fostar for plaintiff, MrGarrickfor defendant.—fWi • B. Stamford v,AMoll,claim £5 {plaintiff sou* suited, costs feo fil ls, one witness 10s. Mr Izard for defendantor-S. Cohen T. W. S. Walker, claim £2O; judgment;for plaintiff for £2O, attd costa 15s.—lAngdown and Co. v. G. W. Dowson, claim £3 Of lOd; judgment by default, and costa. '6s.—-Same v. T. Whittington, claim £6 4s Bjd i judgment by default, and 'costa 9s.—A. f Postle v. J. Pratt, chain £6 Is {judgment by default, and: costs 10s.—Same v. J. Wilson, claim £2,98; judgment by defaulti and costs. 10s.—Samev. S. Groosky, claim £3l6s 5d j judgment by default, and costs 7s.—Same v. B. Yerkensen, claim £2 17s 9d; judgment by default, and opsts 7s.—G. Fletcher r. J. Boston, claim £7 10s; judgment by default, arid costa Bs. F. Jenkins r. E. Bennett, claim £118s; plaintiff for £ll3s, and coita 6s.—S. D.’Nathan v. K. Greer, claim ‘£l 10e; j udgment by default, and costs ss.—HcathcbtC Bead Board v.A Shaw, claim £1 17s Hd j judgment by default, and costs ss.—Good Templar Hall Company t." Gl'viHyde,. claim _ £l3; plaintiffs non-suited, costs 18s, solicitor’s fee' -£3 2s. Mr' Thomas for defendant. — S. D- Nathan v, E. S. Bullcn, claim £2 ; judgment by -' default, and Costs' 6s.—G. Whitley v. W, ' Broad, claim £1 7S'; jndgment by default, and costs ss.—J. 'Mallard v. H. MTlroy, claim 5s ; 'judgment tot plaintiff, arid costs Bs.—C. 'Adeney, v. 0. F.“Bonz, claim £6 6s;. judgment by default, and costs Bs.—J. Wilson r. A Thompson, claim £9 18s; judgment by default; and costs Bs, solicitor’s fee £1 Is. ‘ Mr' Izard for plaintiff.—W. 11. Burton v. B. W. Jtoper, claim £4 4s lid; tendered by defendant. £3 5s Bd'; judgment for plaintiff for £3 12s 2d, and one witness 10s.—J. Barrett v. T. M. Ridley,' claim £8 19s 9d; plaintiff nonsuited, costa Bs, and solicitor’s fee £1 Is. Mr Izard for defendant.—W. E. Ellis and others t. J. Trott, claim £7 10s; judgment for plaintiff fori £4 16s, and costa-£1 Is, one witness -10 s- Mr Neck for plaintiff, and Mr Izard- for defendant.—o. Martin v.- G. A;Makeig, claim £2 J judgment by default; and costa ss.—E. Evans r. D. Wotten, claim £3; plaintiff nonsuited, costs ss.—T. Howe v. M. Welsh, claim £2 15s lOd; j udgment for plaintiff for £2 15s lOd, and costs 6s.— I Tv Beaven v. T. B. Jacobsen, claim £2l3s 4d; tendered £2lßs 4d j judgment for plaintiff for amount tendered: and costs ss, plaintiff to pay costs.

LYTTELTON. Satxtbdat, Feb. 8.

(Before Q. L. Mellish and T. H. Potts, Esqs.) Refusing Durr.—On the testimony of-the master of the barque Chittagong, Charles Cluakey, second mate, was sent to gaol for 96 hours’ hard labour for refusing his lawful commands., , Civil Business.—Brown and Smith t. E. GK Bullen, claim £4 18s sd; judgment by default. Mitchell v. Smith, claim £2 for trespass of cattle; adjourned for a week to allow defendant to remove them. Souse v. Parsons, claim £l7 17s 2d, amount of indent drags per Hurnnni, money for which had been paid by plaintiff on defendant’s account. Mr H. N. Nalder appeared for plaintiff, Mr Williams for defendant. The defendant refused to pay the sum until the goods indented to him were delivered to him. The plaintiff was nonsuited. AMBERLEY. Satpbdax, Feb. 8. (Before Matthew Moms, Esq.) Indecent Exfosubh.—Charles M'Namara was charged on the information of David Eobertson with indecently exposing himself and making use of obscene language. Accused was fined £2 for the indecent exposure, £lfor using obscene language, and £1 2s costs. Feedax, Feb. 7. (Before His Worship the Mayor and James Campbell, Esq.) Detoebnness.—James Millar, for being drunk whilst in charge of a horse, was fined 20s or 48 hours’ imprisonment. The same person was also charged with cruelly ill-using a horse. Evidence was taken to prove that the accused had kicked the horse with his heavy iron shod boots. Fined £2 or 96 hours’ imprisonment. TIMABU. Satubdax, Feb. 8. (Before B. Beetham, Esq., R.M.) Illegally on Pbbmises.— John Sykes, for being illegally on the premises of the Clarendon Hotel-by. night, was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment with hard labour.