MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9465, 14 July 1891, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, July 13. (Before A. Lean and C. Louisson, Esqs.) Drunkenness. Robert Hamilton, charged with being drunk and with wilfully breaking a pane of glass on Oxford terrace, value 12s, the property of Mr G. Cooper, was fined 5s for drunkenness and ordered to pay 12s; in' default, twentyfour hours’ imprisonment for drunkenness and ninety-six hours for the damage.-—A female first offender, who did not appear, was fined 10s. :

Alleged Infanticide. —; Mary Jane Amos, charged with the murder of her infant male child, was, oh the application of Mr Pender, remanded for eight days.' Assault. Robert,' Cruikahank was. charged, on the information of : Charles Stuart El wards,: with assaulting him by beating him oyer the , head and shoulders with a stick. The circumstances of the case were that complainant is a newspaper vendor at the Bank of New Zealand corner, and defendant is a book agent, who, according to the evidence, had persuaded complainant’s daughter to subscribe to a book, value a guinea. The defendant had called for the money, and complainant had told his daughter to refer the book agent to him. The agent had seen Edwards, and some words ensued, whereupon, seeing that Edwards was aggressive, defendant struck him a blow over the head and one on the shoulder. Edwards then followed defendant along Hereford street and on to the Ferry road, where defendant got on to the car that was passing. Edwards sought to follow him on the car when defendant struck him again and Edwards had to be taken to the hospital. Mr Donnelly appeared for the complainant, and Mr Stringer for the defence. Dr Jennings testified to the nature of the wounds received. The complainant, James Christie and John Moynihan gave evidence in support of the charge. Mr Stringer, for the defence, called Constable Barrett,and, Joseph Staples. The other witnesses for the defence were Messrs Baker, Gapes and Evans. The defendant, being put in the box, said that one of his agents had sold complainant’s daughter a book, and when he went to deliver it the girl referred him to her father, who was very abusive and used soma very vile language. On the day in question the complainant had accosted defendant in the middle of the street, andhad called him a number of bad names without provocation and had sidled up to.defendant as if to strike him. He then struck complainant to keep him off. Subsequently, when Edwards had followed him to the Ferry road, defendant got on to the tram to get out of his way, and as complainant followed him he struck him again. Complainant did not ask for defendant’s name. All he did was to use abusive language. The Bench considered there bad been a great deal of provocation, still the assault had been committed, and a fine of 10s would be inflicted. If this were the means of checking the inroads of book agents, the proceedings would not have been entirely in vain. On Mr Donnelly applying for costs, the question of the witnesses’ expenses came up, those for the complainant having been called by the police. The Bench, therefore, reduced the fine to one shilling and allowed the expenses.

LYTTELTON. Monday, July 13. (Before J. B. Milsom and H. Allwright, Esqs.) Drunkenness.—A first offender was fined ss, or in default twenty-four hours for this offence. KAIAPOI. Monday, July 13. (Before Captain Preece, R.M., and R. Blakeley, Esq.) Lunacy.— -Ou the certificates of Drs Murray and Parsons, a female lunatic was committed to the Sunnyside Asylum.. Civil Cases. Mpreley v. Solomon, claim ,£l7 6s 8d: Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.—A; Hunt v. Uru, claim 10s. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.—W. Walls v. G. Humphreys, claim £2 10s. Judgment for plaintiff, with coats.—T. H. Caverhiil v. Kinney, claim £1 Is, for expenses of adjournment. Mr Nalder appeared for plaintiff. The case was adjourned for a fortnight.—W. Starke V; J. O’Donald, claim £5. This claim was for training a mare in 1886 and for other expenses. There was a cross-action, J. O’Donald v. W. Starke, claim £32. This was a claim for wages, value of saddle, and breach of contract. Mr M. Nalder appeared for Starke, and Mr Byrne for O’Donald. Judgment was given for defendant in the first case. With regard to the second case, the contention of Starke’s counsel as to the unity of the contract was upheld, and judgment was given that the horses in question be handed over on payment to defendant of purchase money £lB, less value of saddle £2, wages £1 10s, deposit Is, and costa £3 10s ,- defendant to be allowed £1 for grazing fees.