MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIV, Issue 9173, 5 August 1890, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHEISTOHUECH. Monday, August 4. (Before S. D. Barker and F. H. Barker, Esqa.) DauNKENNKsa. —Isabella Leckie, against whom there are no less than eighty-five previous charges during her fourteen years of Colonial life, was again fined £l, or the usual alternative. Eiohard Tubman was fined J 22. Labceny. —William E. Colins Timby was charged on the information of Ellerby Eowberry, a member of the Salvation Army*' with the larceny of on overcoat from the barracks on May 23. The complainant identified the coat, which he recognised as his own at the barracks on the previous hight, and ho had accompanied Detective Neil to the home of the accused, when accused denied having taken the coat, but said that bis mother bad bought it for him. Detective Neil gave corroborative evidence. Accused was sentenced to fourteen days' hard labour. (Before B. Beetham, Esq., E.M.) : Civil Cases. —Nind-Ward v. Hurrell, plaimJßoSa 8d j judgment for plaintiff by default.—Barrett v. Bobinson, claim £l3 2a' 6d. Mr Lane for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant. Plaintiff claimed for the trotting-' mare Beeswing, from Sept. 21, 1889, to Jan. 4, 1890, at 15a per week. Plaintiff alleged that on the former data he saw Mr Bowman, solicitor, at Tatteraall’s, and went with him to‘ Bobinaon’s shop, in High street, and there he was told by Eobineon to take Bowman’s instructions with regard to the mare. Saw Bowman frequently, and Bobinson twice about the mate. The former told him to nominate her for a selling race, and she did not win. On Jan. 4 Bobinson said-if she did not win ■ hQ would take her back, and he did bo. ' Alfred Walker also gave evidence. W. W. Smith, a law, clerk, late in the employ of Bowman, solicitor, swore that the latter advanced money to a man named M'Lachlan, who gave a bailment over the mare. Understood afterwards that she belonged to Bobinson. The evidence of Craighead, a bailiff, with regard to a seizure of the mare was read. W. B. Bobinson,' defendant, swore that in November, 1888, Bowman owed him money given him by defendant for investment, and the latter gave him M'Lachlan’a bill as security.- This was dishonoured, and ' Bowman obtained the horse from M’Lachlan as security for part of the debt. Never spoke to Barrett when the horse was brought to his shop, and the animal was conditioned on Bowman’s account. Never became responsible for its keep. When it was returned it was sold for about £3 10s. Judgment for .defendant. — Feet v. Union Steamship Company, claim .8100. Mr Lbughnan for plaintiff; Mr Nalder for defendant. The case was argued, and judgment; reserved. t: KAIAPOI. ■ 1 Monday, August 4. [(Before Caleb Whitefoord, Esq., 8.M.) Poaching.— John , Peter Petersen was ' changed, on two informations, with using a net for the taking of fish, on July 18 and 21, in that part of the river Waimakariri West of the eastern boundary of B.S. 1393, contrary to law. Mr Spackman prosecuted bn behalf of the Acclimatisation Society, and in opening the case said that by regulations made under the Fisheries Conservation Act the whole river was closed to nets in September, 1887. However, the Society were willing so far to meet the fishermen, that on the latter petitioning Government to allow a portion to bo netted it was arranged that the eastern • boundary of E.S. 1393 (some ' two milea Bast of the main bridge in the town), should be the limit. West of , which no netting should be carried on, and the same was gazetted. Since then breaches of the Act led to the appointment of a ranger, and the present flies resulted. The regulations and Gazettt lytiiig fry" ynfe is* A»JD» Colo stated he

was ranger to the Society, and produced his appointment under the Act. On July 18 he dragged the Waimakariri and found a net near the Produce Company’s stores. Watched it two or three days, and on Sunday it had gone. On July 21, about 7.30 p.m., was at the boatshed below the swing bridge. Saw a man in a boat about midway between the bridges. Ha shot a net across the stream at right angles, Witness and two others got into a boat. The man turned and made down stream. He shot under the produce sheds and threw sinkers, &c., overboard. Witness crept under the shed, and found Petersen in the boat. He said he had no nets. Witness found two, one dripping wet—the one 4in mesh. Ha said, “ You didn’t catch me the other night, smart as you are.”. Defendant, sworn, stated he used no nets there. He was under the shed, but not out on the river, or above the bridge at all, since leaving his shop at five o’clock. His nets were for use down the river. His Worship pointed out that either the Ranger or defendant were committing perjury, and ho warned defendant to be very careful in his statements, as be would, if necessary, direct an information for perjury to be laid against defendant. He would adjourn the case for an hour for the production of the other men in the boat. Oa resuming, Mr M. Nalder appeared for Petersen. In answer to Mr Nalder, defendant stated his movements in detail on the evening in question. He put his nets in his boat at the wharf, and had pulled under the shed when the others came up. He reported his loss to the police. Cole repeated his evidence, and was cross-examined by Mr Nalder. Mr Spackman called John Bugg, who deposed that he was in the boat with Cole. Keetley was steering. When below the large bridge. Cole said “ There bo is.” A boat and man were then some twenty yards ahead. It was moonlight. The boat turned towards the sheds and disappeared. Came up and found Petersen in his boat, and took oat nets. Thought that defendant then went upstream. J. H. Keetley stated he was in the boat pulling. Did not see the other boat and man until they got under the sheds. Found nets as stated. Petersen asked Cole why he did nat catch him on the previous night. Petersen went ashore after the conversation. This was all the evidence, and Mr Whitefoord said, to his mind, it was not • sufficiently strong to convict the accused. At the same time, the circumstances were very suspicious, and he warned fishermen that conduct of the sort, if proved, would entail severe penalties—up to JBSO fines. Not only were they destroying fish, but they were by their action closing the river against all who wished to act honestly. Both cases would be dismissed. Harbours Act. —Waimakariri Harbour Board v. Whitworth. On the application of Mr Nalder, this case stood over to August 18, conditionally on a Resident Magistrate sitting on that day. Civil Case. —Judgment by default was given in J. Sims v. E. M’Gillon, claim £ll6s 6d. ASHBURTON. Monday, August 4. (Before R. Alcorn and A. Harrison, Esqs.) Larceny.— Three boys of tender years were charged with the larceny of a whip from a buggy, belonging to J. Osborne, at Willowby, on July 27. The police did not press for any punishment, and the boys were let off with a caution. Drunkenness.— A first offender was discharged on payment of coats.—James Smith, an inmate of the Old Men’s Homs, was charged with drunkenness. The Bench made an order that accused was not to be allowed to leave the precincts of the Home tor a month. A Virago.— Mary Brown was charged with having attempted to get on a train while in motion, with having been guilty of disorderly conduct while drunk, with having made use of obscene language, and with having resisted Constable M'Gill in the execution of his duty. David Thomas said that he was at the railway station on Saturday, when the 3.40 train was leaving for Christchurch. Ha saw the woman try to get on board the train while it was in motion, but she slipped and fell between the carriages. A man named Ballance and witness extricated her, and had it not been for this timely nSjp she must have been killed. She was slightly under the influence of liquor, and when the constable arrested her she became very violent, and made use of a good deal of bad language. Several people had to go to the assistance of the constable, and it was only with a great deal of trouble that she was got into a cab. J. Stevenson, etationmaster at Ashburton, said that, but for the efforts of Mr Thomas and another, the woman would undoubtedly have been killed. Witness instructed the constable to obtain her name and address, whereupon she became very violent. It took seven men to arrest her. Constable M’Gill said that, by instruction of the etationmaster, he went to the accused to get her name and address. As she was under the influence of liquor he found it necessary to arrest her. She was very violent, used bad language, and struck several of those who assisted in-her arrest. The accused, who elected to give evidence on her own behalf, denied the charges against her, of using obscene, anguage, of drunkenness and violent conduct. She did not know she was doing anything wrong in getting on the train, which was hardly moving, and she ha&seen other people do the same thing. On the charge of getting on the train while in motion, accused was fined 40a and costs, with the. alternative of seven days’ imprisonment. A conviction was ordered to be entered up on the second cnarge. For the obscene language accused was ordered to be imprisoned for seven days, and on the last charge, that of resisting a constable, a conviction was recorded. Alleged Assault.— William Sutherland was charged, on the information of Joseph Doherty, with having assaulted the informant. Mr Purnell appeared for the informant, and Mr Cubhbertson for the defendant. The evidence of Joseph Doherty went to show that he had been sent to the farm which had till lately been occupied by Sutherland to take away some straw bought by Doherty’s father. On entering the farm Sutherland told the complainant to clear out, and catching hold of the horses’ heads prevented him from proceeding further. As Sutherland kept sawing the horses’ mouths with the reins, complainant told him that if he did not let go he would make him. Sutherland then went towards the house, and having taken off his coat, picked up an iron bar, with which he struck complainant oa the head. Complainant threw Sutherland into the hedge and hold him there until pulled off by Mrs Sutherland. Sutherland afterwards gob hold of a big stick and struck complainant on the arm, face and back with it. A quantity of other evidence was given in support of the information. The defendant, William Sutherland, said that Doherty had removed all the straw which he had purchased, and when young Doherty camo witness told him so. Doherty challenged witness to fight, followed him towards bis house, and said that he would thrash him in or out of it. Witness got a bar of iron in order to drive Doherty off the place, and he struck the latter on the arm with it. Witness was thrown into a gorse hedge and held there and pummelled till Mrs Sutherland came out and palled Doherty off. Doherty tried to get a pitchfork to attack witness with, aud witness then got angry and struck tii© complainant several times with his fist, but at no time during the row did he use a stick. Other evidence having been taken, the Bench held that Sutherland, who, it appeared, had been looking after the property for the purchaser, was justified in preventing the straw being taken away, but that an iron bar was not a proper thing to use. The case would bo dismissed, each party to pay its own costs.