MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIII, Issue 5918, 13 February 1880, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

OHEIBTOHTJEOH. Thursday, Fbb. 12. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq., E.M.) Obtaining Goods and Monbt. —Edward Emil Dransfield, on remand from the previous daj, was charged with obtaining goods and money by means of a valueless cheque, drawn for £6 16s 9d. Prisoner was also charged with obtaining £1 from Alfred Tom Carter by means of a valueless cheque. Accused admitted the offences. He did not think ho had been quite responsible. s In Queensland he suffered from brain fever, and haying lately permitted himself to take a little drink, there were times when he did not know what ho was doing. That was the only plea he could advance in extenuation. Nothing previously was known against the prisoner. Sergeant Moriee having given some few particulars respecting the recent movements of the accused, His Worship decided that as various other cheques had been passed by prisoner, and the practice appeared to have been a systematic one, the present charges could not well be summarily dealt with. Prisoner would be remanded until the following day. Sunday Trading. —Henry Marks appeared in answer to the charge that he “ did expose and sell fruit, to wit at Manchester street, m the City of Christchurch, upon the Lord s Day, contrary to the Statute.” There were two informations. Mr Stringer appeared for the accused, and said he was prepared to admit the exposure and sale of a pound of apples on Fob. 1, and a pound of plums on Feb. 8. He contended, however, that under the provisions of the Act there could be no other penalty than the forfeiture of the goods. Mr Stringer . read ({ “°™ the Act 29 Oar 2, o 7, which provides That all the laws enacted and in force concerning the observation of the Lord’s Dayi and repairing to the Church thereon, be carefully put in execution, and that all and every person and persons whatever shall on every Lord’s Day apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately : and that no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer, or other person whatsoever shall do or exercise any worldly labour, business or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord s Day, or any part thereof (works of charity and necessity only excepted), and that every person being of the age of fourteen years or upwards

offending in the premises, shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of 6s; and that no person or persons whatsoever shall publicly cry, show forth or expose to sale any wares, fruit, herbs, goods or chattels whatsoever upon the Lord’s day, or any part thereof, upon pain that every person so offending shall forfeit the same goods so cried or showed forth or exposed to sale.” Mr Stringer then submitted that the statute, passed 204 years ago, was not in force in New Zealand. The question really was, as laid down in Mr Justice Johnston’s “Justice of the Peace,” what statutes were applicable to the circumstances of the Colony P He then argued that such laws as were specially enforced by penalties were those which were applicable to a young Colony, and he quoted the appeal case of Borton v. Howardin support of his plea. The forfeiture of the goods as provided was purely a penal matter, and therefore the Act could not apply here. Another point, and a very strong one, was that there were not the means here for enforcing the provisiens of the Act, for it provided that the offender might be placed in the public stocks for two hours in default of the distress being found. Here there were no public stocks, and they could not be made, for they were to be provided by the Till, or Court Leet. There was still another objection, that the Act passed in 1676 was purely for local considerations, and the then existing local considerations did not apply at this time in this Colony. He then went on to quote authorities to show that the thing to be prevented was a mischief existing in England, that the alleged offence could not be held to prevail to any inconvenient extent here, and that the provisions of the Act could not, without great incongruity, be transferred to this Oolong. He would submit that the people of Christchurch were God-fearing and pious, not to say sanctimonious—people, affording in their conduct a marked contrast to the licentiousness of the reign of Charles 11. His Worship said he would he against Mr Stringer on the point as to the necessity for the Act. The other points he would take time to consider, and would decide the case on the following day, if possible. Replying to a remark made by Sergeant Morice, Mr Stringer pointed out that there were many other offences besides the one indicated which might be gone upon with equal justice, and he might be permitted to point out, for the benefit of the antiquarian department of the police force, that there was an Act, under the provisions of which common scolds of the feminine gender might be publicly ducked.

AMBERLEY. Thuebday, Feb. 12. (Before T. Douglas, Esq.) Yageancy.—William Thompson, a military looking man, was charged with this offence by Constable Watt. An employee of Messrs D. and D. Cameron, storekeepers, proved that prisoner came into their store and asked for a box of collars. He behaved in an eccentrie manner, and might have been suffering from the effects of drink. Dismissed with a caution. LEESTON, Thtjesday, Feb. 12. (Before J. Beswick, Esq., R.M., and W. J. G. Bluett, Esq.) Civil Oases. —Trustees in the estate of J. J. Loe v. Conway, claim £7 16s; judgment for plaintiff.—Same v. W. J. G. Bluett, claim 5s Bdj plaintiff nonsuited.—Same v. John Toon, claim 12s; plaintiff non-suited.—Same v. Roberts, claim £1 13s 4d ; judgment by default.—Same v. 0. Hanz, claim £1319s lOd; judgment for plaintiff. MALYEBN. Wednesday, Feb. 11. (Before Caleb Wliitefoord, Esq., E.M., the Hon Colonel Brett, and H. J. Mathias, Esqs.) Railway By-laws.—Thomas Burt was charged with travelling without a ticket from Darfield to Eolleston. Accused, who did not appear, was fined 20s and costs 2s, or in default 43 hours’ imprisonment. Bebach op the Peace.—Henry Sesdale was charged with creating a disturbance in Davies’ Hotel, Kowai Pass, and fined 40s and costs 2s, or in default 98 hours’ imprisonment. The fine was paid.—Henry Davies was charged with creating a breach of the peace by striking one Robert Arthur Kaig. Accused admitted having done so, and said it was owing to complainant making use of insulting language to his wife. The Bench said, in consideration of the circumstances, a light penalty would be imposed. Fined 10s and costs 2s.

Cattle Teespass.—William Shaw was charged on the information of John Fraser, Chairman of the Malvern Cemetery Board, for that he did rescue two cows from Donald Naysmith, the same having been lawfully seized for the purpose of being impounded. Accused said he was a new arrival And did not think he was doing wrong. He met the cattle going down the road and turned them back. The Bench cautioned accused, and he was ordered to pay 20s and costs. Civil Oases. —South Malvern Eoad Board v. George Robert, claim 14s Bd. Judgment for amount and costs, 6s.—P. Doyle v. G. P. Hunt, claim £42 4s 6d, wages. Judgment for amount and costs, £1 17s, immediate execution granted.—J. 8. Moore v. William Sleeman, claim £3 18s fid. Judgment for amount and costs, 18s.—Springfield. Goal Company v. George Hobson, claim £2 15s, Judgment for defendant.—Malvern Cemetery Board v. Henry Lowe, claim Bs, for cow trespassing in cemetery. Judgment for amount and costs, 9s. The Bench remarking that cows trespassing in a place of this kind could not be tolerated. —Charles Bedfern v. J>. G. Matheson, claim £ls, damages owing to defendant’s bull trespassing on plaintiff’s farm. Defendant admitted his bull was a very good jumper, but would have kept him at home if plaintiff had given him notice to do so. Judgment for £5, and costs £1 7s. — Arthur Smith v. John Rountree, claim £ll 10s, wages. Judgment by default and costs, 19s.—G. B. Willis v. W, J. Taylor, claim £lO 16s, half cost repairing dividing fence. A set-off was filed, and disallowed, being dated over the time allowed by the Statute of tations. Judgment for amount and costs, os.