MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXI, Issue 7223, 24 April 1884, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHEISTCHUECH. Wednesday, Apeil 23. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M.)

Drunkenness. —Thomas Ward, who had a long list against him, was fined £l, or 48 hours in default.—A. Millar, who had come to the Police Station last night with almost no clothing on, and made rambling statements, was remanded for seven, days. A first offender was fined ss. Larceny — Supposed Insanity. —Lizzie Booker was charged with stealing a dress, value <£l, the property of Eose Johnston. Accused denied the offence. Inspector Pender called Eose Johnston, a member of Dunning’s Opera troupe, who said she had been staying at the Central Hotel, where accused was servant. Left the dress produced on her bed, and saw it there at 10.10 a.m. yesterday. Missed it, and afterwards received it from Mrs Webb, another member of the company, who had stopped at the same hotel. To accused : Did not miss the dress for any time. Mrs Webb said that she bad seen the dress in Miss Johnston’s room about 1.30 p.m. Shortly afterwards she saw accused in the passage with the dress on her. arm. James Wallace, licensee of the Central Hotel,'said that accused entered his employ as second housemaid on April 21. Witness had found she was not suitable for him, and had told her to leave. Yesterday he saw. accused -with the dress folded up under her arm, running up the stairs. Accused made a statement to the effect that she had. not taken the dress, and Mr Wallace had adopted this method of getting rid of her. Inspector Pender said accused had come out about three months ago, and from her strange manner and behaviour he doubted if she was “ quite right.” She never stopped in a place more than a few hours. After she was locked' up she had some sort of a fit, and her conduct had led the constables who had seen her to think she was not in her senses. His Worship remanded the accused till the following day for medical examination.

Obscene Language. Harry "Walters and Harry Forward were charged with using obscene language on the previous night in a public place. Both the accused, who were well dressed young men, denied the charge. Detective O'Connor deposed that the accused had both been making use of obscene expressions about last night. Both, the accused were more or less drunk. Sergeant Moore gave corroborative evidence.. Forward said he could obtain evidence that would exonerate him, and the case was postponed to enable him to do so. When the witness appeared his statement was to the effect that he had heard Forward say, “ There’s another of the cowards,” ' referring to Detective O’Connor. His Worship entertained no doubt that the two young men were, drunk on the streets, and had made use of the language complained of. Fined .£1 each, in default v 8 hours’ imprisonment. The New Street Nuisance. —Mabel Ada Boyd wu > accused of acting as the mistress of a house of ill-fame, contrary to clause 58 cf the Miscellaneous by-law (No. (5). Mr Joyce appeared for the accused, and said he had advised her to leave the place and shut it up. His Worship said the case must be gone into. Inspector Pender called James M‘ Donald, who arid ho lived in New street, opposite to defendant’s house. Her house was a “regular terror to the neighbours, a very bad house. Defendant managed the house. The place was a very great annoyance to witness and his family. Defendant was mistress of the house, which was the subject of this action. W. J. Craml also, gave evidence : Ho had known teat accused had kept a very disorderly house in New street for two years past. Cross-examined: Witness had offered to sell his property to Mrs Boyd, in order that ho might leave the neighbourhood. Thomas Cooper, storekeeper, Henry laj lor, builder, J. Anthony, builder, bergeants Pratt and Wilson, of the Police, also gave evidence of tho had character of the house in question. Inspector Pender said the place had become such a notorious nuisance in tho neighbourhood that people were flying from the street and selling out their properties in order to do so. xno police were hound to take notice of it. mr Joyce, for tho defence, submitted that the proceedings should have boon by indictment, as ho said was done in England. Tho by-law, ho contended, was ultra vires, and there was no authority given to tho City Council to make by-laws for the control of such houses. His Worship held that the Council ‘had such power by subsection 4, of section 12, of the Municipal

Corporations Act, 1876. Defendant denied that she acted as mistress of the house referred to. She had lived in the house that was burnt down. A witness, a young woman, called for the defence, admitted that the defendant had given her pennis sion to stop in the house. His Worship said the place seemed to have been an abominable outrage on decency, and a fine of £5 and 7e costs was imposed. Civil Cases. —Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the cases of Pearce v. Sanclford and Griffiths, claim £2O 15s; Strata v. Honey wood, claim .£3 2s Cd; N.Z. Grain Agency v. Torrens, claim .£36 lie 8d; Wilson v. Mein, claim £0 4s; Duncan v. Johns, claim ,£JB 4s 4d; Eeid and Gray v. Russell, claim £2-1 9s; same v. M'Cutcheon, claim £1 9s 3d.—Derrett v. Kobinson and Lance was fm-ther adjourned to May 7. OXFORD. Wednesday, April 23. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M., and John Ingram, Esq.) Civil Cases.— J. M. Booth v. E, 3. Dickinson, claim i!2 Os Od ; John Fisher v, F. Kellick, claim £2 Is Od. Judgment bydefault iu each case. A number of other cases were settled out of Court. TIMAEU. Wednesday, April 23. (Before J. Beswick, Esq., E.M.) Breach op Slaughter-House Act.— J. Bennett was charged witli killing a bull on unlicensed promises on March 28, and selling the same without being duly licensed. Mr White appeared for the prosecutor, the Geraldine County Council. It transpired that the bull had become dangerous, and for his own and the public safety defendant had had it shot, and had sold the meat in preference to letting it lie about. His Worship considered he had done right morally, but evidently had not considered that he was creating a breach of law. A fine of one shilling was inflicted. A similar charge against William Stevens was dealt with in. like manner.