MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXI, Issue 7225, 26 April 1884, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHEISTCHTJECH. Friday, Apbil 25. (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., E.M., E. Westenraand P. J. Kimbell, Esqs.) Indecency.—Joan Maher, charged with indecent exposure on the South belt, was fined 20s. Assaults.—John Kelly was charged with using obscene language in High street, and with assaulting Constable Mahoney in the execution of his duty. Accused admitted having used obscene language, but denied the other charge. It appeared from the evidence that the constable and another man were standing talking in High street on Thursday evening, when the prisoner deliberately pushed up against them, and made use of very violent language. Accused was fined 20s, 5s of which was to go towards the expenses of a witness. — John Blair was charged, on information, with having assaulted John Harding at Prebbleton on April 9. Mr Holmes appeared for the complainant, and Mr Corr for the accused. Mr Corr stated that his client pleaded guilty, but urged provocation : the other side had refused to accept an apology. Mr Holmes: Oh, no, no, we won't accept an apology after a man has been thrown into a tub of water and had three buckets of water thrown over him. John Harding stated that on the night of April 9, defendant came to his farm at Prebbleton to see about a threshing machine. He made some remarks about witness' grain, which he styled a " lot of d d rubbish." Witness told him to go away, but instead of complying, accused threatened to throw witness

into a tub of water that was standing noar. Witness again ordered him off, and accused throw him into the tub, pitched two buckets of water over him, spread his hand over witness' face, and threatened to knock his brains out. Ho did not go away for some time, during which he continued to threaten witness. He told the men working at the machine that he would smash witness' hobo. He smelt of intoxicating liquor. Witness had only the use of one hand, the other having been disabled by rheumatics.' Cross-examined: Accused came to witness' place on the next day, aud offered an apology. Witness called accused a Scotch b- . but that was after ho had been thrown into the tub of water. Witness' hand and thumb had been injured by the assault. The threshing machine belonged to Mr Dalton, and was to have loft witness* place to work for Blair. Henry Palmer, a labourer, gavo corroborative evidence. Ho did not attempt to prevent tho assault. Crossexamined: Bid not interfere because ho thought ho would bo no bettor in Mr Blair's hands than Mr Harding was. Blair had had a drop too much. John Bowling stated that he had seen Blair put Harding in tho tub of water. After the assault, Blair came up to the top of the machine, and began to feed it again. Mr Corr briefly addressed the Bench, asking thorn to. deal loniently with his client, who, ho contended, was a respectable man, and had a perfect right to go to Harding's place to enquire after the machine, and also to make remarks about tho quality of tho wheat. The Bench said that if the accused was tho respectable man counsel described him to be, he ought to bo thoroughly ashamed of the cowardly and ruffianly assault he had committed. They could not refrain also from commenting on the conduct of the men in charge of the threshing machine, who were very much to blame for not havingprevented the assault. Had not the expenses of tho witness Palmer been guaranteed by counsel, they would certainly have been disallowed. Accused would be fined £5, with costs of Court, professional fees, and witness' expenses. Affiliation. —Hyani Edward Nathan was charged, on remand, with not providing for the support of two illegitimate children, of which Emily Stevens was the mother. Mr Austin for the defendant, said that he would not ask for a dismissal oh the ground of non-corroboration, but would call evidence to prove that Mr Nathan not only was not the father of the children, but could not have had anything to do with the affair. He would call the complainant in order to ask her a few questions, so that the evidence might not take her by surprise. Emily Stevens, the complainant, said that she stopped at Mrs Johnson's, near the Black Horse Hotel, for a week, before she went to Mr Nathan's. She never had any intimacy with Mannering, the barman at the hotel. She knew a man named Crowther, an attendant at the Asylum, but by name only. She also knew Wraxworthy, Miller, and Henry Page. Had never had any intimacy with them. She only went once to the Black Horse Brewery, and did not sleep there. Had not instructed Mr Raphael in the case. Had not told him to write the letter produced to the effect that any applications to settle the affair were to be sent through him. Had never been to the Cattle Show. Jane Johnson said that she had charge of a child of complainant's. She knew that Attendant Page left the Asylum about Sept. 22,1882. Noticed a change in complainant's appearance about a month after she went to Mr Nathan's. Met com--plainant on the day of the Cattle Show wearing an ulster of Miss Nathan's. Cross-examined : Had refused to tell anything to the police because she did not wish to be mixed up in the affair. Had told it to Mr Feast, because he asked her. Re-examined: Had at first refused to tell Mr Austin anything about the case. —. Johnson, a lad of about 14, a son of the last witness, said that in November, 1882, he went to Mr Nathan's house with some strawberries. He had been given a shilling to recommend Emily Stevens to Nathan as a servant. Crossexamined : Remembered that he had done this in November, because they "were bottling at the Black Horse Hotel at the time. Henry Page stated that he had stayed for five nights at the Black Horse Hotel in September, 1882. Emily Stevens was servant there at the time. Did not see her, and knew nothing about her, except that common talk said that she bore a loose character. Hyam Edward Nathan, the defendant, denied having had any intimacy with the complainant. When complainant was in witness' service she used to go out at night a great deal, and on one occasion she stopped out all night. In January, 1883, after she had left, she came to witness' office, and made certain statements about her relations with witness' son. Witness ordered her out of the office, and did not see her again until he met her in Court. Witness received the letter produced from Mr Raphael. Witness had paid a servant, not complainant, £2 for wages between August 23 and 28, 1882. Mr Austin briefly addressed the Bench, contending that the evidence had failed to implicate his client. Mr. Whitefoord, in giving judgment, said that the statement of the complainant had not in any way been corroborated by the evidence, and, after hearing the evidence for the defence, they had no alternative but to dismiss the information. He thought that Mr Austin had been wise in calling the evidence for tho defence, because it had enabled the Bench to state that they thought there were no grounds for laying the complaint, and no imputation on Mr Nathan's character in regard to the case. The Bench considered that they should make this opinion public, because the circumstances were of a somewhat painful nature, and had excited some comment. All the Magistrates on the Bench agreed in that view, and he could assure Mr Nathan that they considered that no imputation rested on his character in regard to the case.

LYTTELTON. Peidat, Apkil 25. (Before E. Beetham, Esq., E.M.) Desertion.—W. Hale and W. Eaton, two sailors, were charged with desertion from the barque Supreme, on April 24. Captain Lewis, master of the vessel, said that the men signed for three years. They had been on board the vessel for 13 months. Did not make a verbal agreement to discharge the men in Lyttelton. The men shipped at Newcastle, and while in Lyttelton, gave us to understand that they would go to the United Kingdom in the barque. Constable Herlihy proved the arrest of the men, at the request of the mate of the vessel, for desertion. The Bench held that no agreement was proved to discharge the men at Lyttelton, and sent them to gaol for eight weeks, to be put on board the vessel when ready for sea. CIVII, CASE. Kelsey Beos. v« Baxter (Mr Nalder for plaintiffs, Mr Joyce for defendant), claim J 275, for the non-delivery, in good order, of 130 reels of barbed galvanised wire ex the barquentine E. M. Hayward, of which vessel defendant was master. Thomas Owen Kelsey, one of the plaintiffs in the case, produced the bills of lading for the shipment of the wire. First saw the wire about April 16, in his yard. It was covered with a white deposit on all the coils in a more or less degree. It looked like plaster. Tho wire is now perfectly unmarketable. On the 17th of this month I gave notice of a survey to tho Shipping Company, the agents for tho vessel. The captain looked at the wire, and said he could not imagine how it could bo salt, as he had had no water on his deck during the voyage. Wo paid freight on theso goods, and are the owners of the wire. I never saw wire delivered in such a condition. Value the damage done to the wire at a minimum of .£l2 per ton. Crossexamined by Mr Joyce : All the wire was

damaged. Professor Bickerton inspected tho wire, and wrote to witness on the subject. Can produce tho letter. (Mr Nalder objected.) After argument, tho Bench ruled against tho admission of the letter. Mr Joyce would ask for an adjournment of the case, if necessary, to produce Professor Bickerton. Mr Kelsey, cross-examined by Mr Joyce : Tho wire in valued at £.lO p or ton undamaged. I estimated tho damago dono at £l2 por ton. Captain Robert Ticehurst: Was surveyor to tho underwriters. Saw some barbed wire landed from tho barque R. M. Hayward. It ww not in good condition. In his opinion it was damaged by salt water, bnrvoyed the vessel to boo if she was fitted to carry grain on the homeward voyage. Parts of her deck required caulking (about tho water ways and bitts). Refused to pass her till she was caulked. Ihe captain told witness in conversation that he had ca-ricd two cargoes of salt from Cadiz in tho barque. The bilge water might wash some of this on to tho cargo. " Stevens on Stowage" is an authority. Tho extract read from that book is correct. In surveyin«- the vessel saw signs of water having leaked through the deck. Such a cargo as she carried would not sweat. Cross-exa-mined by Mr Joyce : Thought tho damage was caused by salt water. The vessel had plenty of dunnage for tho cargo. The ventilators of the ship were large enough for a vessel of her size. Witness had not had much experience in galvanised iron. Saw tank produced on board the ship. Should attribute the deposit on the tank to the action of salt water. Hie deposit on the wire is similar to that on the tank. Examined by Mr Nalder: The 'tween deck of the vessel is still wet. If tho vessel was perfectly seaworthy this should not be the case. Ordinary sea water would have the effect produced on the wire now in the Court. Beck said he tallied out the R. M. Hayward's cargo. The wire produced had not the same appearance then that it has now. Some of it was slightly rusty, and a few of the battens were broken. By Mr Joyce : Some of the coils had a slight fungus on it, but nothing like that on the tank produced. Had had experience as a mate at sea. Never had previous 'experience with wire. The wire was tallied out on April 9 and 12. The Bench commented on the extraordinary discrepancy between the evidence of Captain Ticehurst and Mr Beck. Captain Ticehurst re-called said : Saw one truck load of the wire, and noticed the damage at once. Would hardly think the crust would be formed on the wire in a few days. The Bench was very much inclined to say that it was desirable and necessary to follow the wire from the ship's side .to Mr Kelsey's store. Evidence was accordingly given by T. Bradley, stationmaster at Ly ttelton, George Goodwin, and William Hampson. Joseph Baxter, master of the barque R.M. Hayward : My vessel was passed by Lloyd's before she left. She was properly swept and dunnaged. The cargo was properly stowed. Kelsey's wire was stowed near and around the foremast. No liquids were stowed near the wire. The voyage lasted nearly 115 days. It was a very rough passage. We were hove-to for two days under bare poles. The deck might strain and admit water. Don't think we pumped two hogsheads of water out of the vessel during the voyage. At Dunedin discharged some wire, some of which was damaged. The tank produced has held salt water, some of which has leaked through. Saw the wire produced discharged. The damage done was through water dripping through the decks. By Mr Nalder: The vessel was caulked two years ago. She is to be re-caulked, and will take grain to London. Tried to get out of the charter to escape having the vessel recaulked. Some of the machinery landed at Dunedin was damaged. Did not when there have anything done to have the deck repaired. Did not clean out all the salt, previously carried in the .Teasel, from between her timbers. The vessel was "put up" at New York to take dry cargo after taking two cargoes of salt. ; By Mr Joyce : Attribute the water coming through the deck at the bitts to the veiy bad weather experienced during the poyage. After hearing further evidence in defence, the Bench thought it iras a question whether the damage was caused -by vis Major or negligence on ihe part of the captain; and that the damage had been done some time before arriving in harbour, as the cargo generally had been landed in good condition, and the cases stowed above the wire showed signs of damage at some period'of time considerably before the time of arrival at Dunedin. The point to be considered was whether the leakage at the foremast and bitts was caused by the wilful neglect of the captain, or the uhpreventible result of bad weather: Judgment would be given at Christchurch on Tuesday morning at 11 a.m.