MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIX, Issue 6871, 8 March 1883, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

,— OHBISTCIUBOH, WBDWBBDAS MABOX 7. (Before B. Beeki en, Bsg., 8.M.) DairitKßNHßsa.—Tir flr«t offender! were fined 6» each. _ , Kbomoxmo amd tvtakJiOmxovMKß Afftf.-Joikua (Jorklo was oharged with to oomply ith an order of the Court to provide tot the eupport of hit children in the Indm rial School. It wh •tated by the Clerk of (1 ■ Court that a portion of the arrears bad >en paid, and the case wai adjourned for few ee«. Tm Cab Casbb.'-O the jdiouraed cm«» againit the eabm«> w& had been charged with allowing thrtf hotae« and vehicle* to remain on the tioro»(W«»' wotraw to the Police being \aUed on. Injector Pender tefoWthe Conr\ that the men had taken out li<Wi» »»«* H eonwquenUy, he would withdrf the cmm.\ Cm* Douglae v. George. In Eie oaie iuMpat was given for plaintiffe, / xTTifli/roa. kvOVUDkS, Mab«h 7. (Befft4 J. OUivier, &q., 8.M., J. W. Awii/atioh C* BB WUliamwn wm eheJged, on ri»»»d,with j ßMleettng to prorid#or an flleg of whom he w« $ father, « d 1 intending* deterl/th* ehfld. Mr »ald« appeared for

the complainant, and Mr Stringer tot the defendant. Mr !falder caUedCapiauiSeWnkel, of the barqnentine Prince Alfred, and father of the complainant, who stated that the defendant, who had Men mate of the Priooe Alfred, told him ia July last of the mutter, in which he acknowledged he was concerned, and asked for forgiveness. Defendant had said that though he could not marry the gir). at lie had no meani, he would do »o after he got on, and he would see that the child did not want. Dafundant had gone to Wellington, and was taken back u mate to September laat in con* sequeneo of his promises, He remained till Jan. 10, when defendant told him timt he (wlfcness) ooold bear all the scandal himself about Ms daughter, as defendant was going to clear out to Sydney and would not main* tain, the chil j any longer. Cross-examined t Had paid defendant off provkiu* to laying up the ship. For the defence, Mr Stringer said be did not intend to dispute the paternity of the child. His Worship read his notes of the last hearing of the ease. Mr Stringer then contended that the evidence read showed } thati the defendant had contributed £27 during lix months towards the child's support, and had always expressed himself willing to provide for the child. Defendant was then sworn, and denied tbat he had told Captain Hohenkel that he would not continue to support the ehild. He had been annoyed at Captain Sohenkel telling people in Ly Helton abotsit the matter,, and defendant had said bo would have to leave Lyttelton, but continue to support the child. He deniud that he had any intention to desert the child. Cross-examined : Had not told Captain Sohenkel that the paternity of the child could not be proved, and had not left Lyttelton in consquenoe of a warrant being issued for his (defendant's) apprehension. Had contributed nothing towards the child's support sinoo Jan. 11, because he bad not t*en in employment einoo tbat date. Mr Stringer read a letter (dated Jan. 24) from Mra llobenkel to defendant, in which she entirely dissented from the aotion her husband bad takon, in " dragging her daughter and the babe through the mire of the fieiident Magistrate's Court." She wished defendant success wherever he went, and remarked that he had always kept his promises aa to supporting the ohild, and had been "perfectly honourable." Mr Malder objeoted to the letter being put in at this stage of the case. His Worship was of opinion that the letter only showed that Mrs Sohenkel and her daughter had nothing to do with favouring the prosecution. Counsel having addressed the 8.-nch„ his Worship said that both informations would be dismissed, as there was no evidence that defea. dant had any intention to desert the ohild or had wilfully failed to contribute to the child's maintenance. Mr Btnnger applied for costs, but the Bench declined to grant them. Bbhich of LICHHBIHO Aor.—William Wood, licensee of the Albion Hotel, was accused of selling liquor on Sunday, March 4. Sergeant Morioe prosecuted, and Mr ft'alder appeared for the defendant. Mr Haider | inquired if Mr Webb wae going to ait in this j case. He thonght it would be in better taste if he did not, as he (Mr Nalder) understood that Mr Webb's brother was the real pros*- ! cutor. Sergeant Morioe Baid the polioe prosecuted. Mr Webb thought he was quite •justified, especially being Mayor of the Borough, in presiding during the hearing of the case. Sergeant Morioe culled William Carson, a boy of about eleven years of age, who appeared to be so disturbed in mind that he could not answer the questions put to him. Constable O'Connor stated that on Sunday last, at 1 pm., be saw the last witness carrying a Maori kit containing an empty bottle. Saw him go in to the Albion Hotel, by the back way, and come out. Stopped him, and in answer to witness the boy stated that lie had sixpennyworth of beer, which had been supplied to him by a girl in the bar of the Albion Hotel. Took the boy back to the hotel, and asked him to point out the person who had served him. 'Xhe boy said a girl with a print dress, whom he did not see, had served him. Mr Wood was in the house, and told witness he had not supplied the boy with :the liquor, nor had he authorised any one to do so. Sergeant Morice: Dm you see what was in the bottle P Witneiis: Yes, beer. Mr Qllivier: How do you know it was beer? Witness: I tasted it,your Worship. (Laughter.) Mr Haider: Who called your attention to the boy ? Sergeant Morice objeoted to the question, and stated that aooording to Judge Johnston's " Justices of the Feaoe," a policeman was forbidden to disoloio the name of his informant. Mr OUiricr allowed the question, and the witness stated that Mr Webb had drawn his attention to the boy. Had heard that the boy had been to the Cambridge Hotel, and had not been supplied there. Could not say that the bottle was empty before the boy went in to the Albion. Bid not see the barmaid at the hotel on Sunday, and Mr Wood said she was in Ghriatohuroh. The boy eaid it was none of the young womea he saw had served him, and on Monday, when he saw the barmaid, he said ift was not her. The boy Carson was then re-called, and the Bench elioited from him evidenoe to the effect that on Sunday he had been to the Albion Hotel, and had obtained some beer, for which he paid Is. The Bench considered that tho evidenoe of the boy was unreliable, and the case would be dismissed. Mr Webb expressed his dissent from the decision, as he considered the boy's evidenoe clearly showed that liquor had been sold. Oivili CABBB.—Manson v. Davidson j olaim £lO, for use and occupation of land. Mr ! Nalder for plaintiff} Mr Joyce for defendant. The defendant had established himself and built a whar£ on an unoccupied and apparently ownerless section of land in Oharteris Bay. Subsequently this land was leased by plaintiff from the owner, who was in England, and the olaim was for rent since the lease had been obtained. It appeared that bo notice to quit had been served on defendant, and also that the summons was informal. Judgment was given for defendant. —Thompson v. Bvans; claim £8 18», for rent. £2 had been paid into Court, and judgment was giyen for plaintiff for the balance.