MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVII, Issue 11225, 24 March 1897, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, March 23. (Before Mr E. Beothain, S.M.) Drunkenness. —William Organ was fined 10s and costs; in default forty-eight hours 1 imprisonment.—Albert Payne and Frederick Eogera, for having been drunk while in charge of a horse and cart, were each fined 20s and costs, with the same alternative. Discharged. Daniel Crawford was charged on remand with having been drunk and with having used obscene language in Durham Street on Feb. 22. This prisoner had been handed over to the Salvation Army, and remanded for a month in order to see how he behaved himself. Adjutant Bishop reported that Crawford was in the Prison Gate Home at Addington, and was doing very well. He was consequently discharged. Maintenance. —Felix filing was charged with being A 5 15s in arrears on an order for the payment of os a week towards the support of his son at the Burnham Industrial School. The defendant had paid nothing since October until that morning, when he had paid ,£1 into Court, and lie was now fined 10s and costs.—Mary Morrigan applied for a maintenance order against her three sons—Dennis, Daniel and Thomas. Mr Donnelly appeared for the complaina t. Daniel and Thomas were each ordered to pay 4s a week, and Dennis was ordered to pay 3s a week. Prohibition Order. —On the application of his father-in-law, a prohibition order was issued against a man, to take effect for twelve months in Christchurch and the surrounding districts.

LYTTELTON. Tuesday, March 23. (Before Mr A. Chalmers, J.P., and Mr J. Hamilton, J.P.) The Education Act.— George Dimond was charged with failing to send his two children, Sydney and David, to school, as provided by the Education Act, 1877. Mr Nalder appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. J. T. Gifford, Secretary of the Lyttelton School Committee, said that on March 2 Dimond wrote to the committee, complaining that his children had been sent homo for a note explaining why they had failed to attend on a previous occasion. The committee replied that this method was the generally recognised custom for checking truancy. E. U. Just, headmaster, deposed that in November and December of last year the children were irregular. After the holidays ho desired them to bring a note. The father saw witness, and refused to send the note. Witness overlooked the matter on that occasion. Shortly after the holidays, the boys again became very irregular. After being away for a week they came again, and were sent home for a note. Witness was of opinion that school work would be almost impossible without some such check on truancy. The father met witness, refused to send a note, and questioned witness’ authority to ask for it. By Mr Nalder : The Education Act gave no authority for sending children home for a note. Certainly did not regard the “sending home” as “expelling” the children. It was the recognised custom in all schools for children when absent to bring notes, and, practically, witness refused to admit the children until this conI dition was complied with. On one oecaj sion one of the boys came after hours and asked for his hooks. These were certainly the property of the parents, but if it was intended for the children to leave the school the parent usually sent a note, so that the child's mime should be removed from the register. Mr Nalder raised a number of objections. The information had been laid under the Education Act, 1877, the penal sections of which had been repealed. Then the words of the information were that the iefendant had “failed to cause his children to attend school.” The case should have been laid Under the School Attendance Act, and he contended that defendant had not neglected or refused to send his children to school since the ; issue of the notice by the committee. The notice was issued on March 3, and the children were sent on March 4 and 5, and had on each occasion been sent home. The Bench said the case would he dismissed, but they thought the master was acting only in the interest of the children and the parent in insisting upon obtaining ' a note. They would advise the defendant to pay more attention to the education of i his children, and not allow them to suffer ■ for any little differences he may have had i with the officials.—William Bethke was ■ charged with failing to send Elizabeth ! Bethke to school. He produced a certifi- i cate that the child was attending the | Catholic school, and the case was dis- | missed. Thomas Coffee was similarly : charged in regard to Sarah Coffee, and did : not appear. Judgment was given against him, with costs. Larceny. —Arthur Percy, a boy aged about twelve, was charged with stealing a silver watch, valued at £2, the property of Robert Grono, on board the steamer Penguin. He pleaded guilty. Sergeant Rutledge reported that the parents of the boy were respectable people, and the boy Ityd got away from home and come to Lyttel- : ton. He had gone on board the Penguin on Tuesday last and taken the watch from the owner’s cabin. He was ordered to receive twelve strokes with the birch. — William Gilson, alias Wilson, was charged with stealing a silver watch, silver chain, and silver medal and a necktie, the whole j valued at £5 3s, the property of Samuel j Edgar. Ho pleaded guilty, and gave his Age as between fourteen and fifteen years. I It appeared that the boy was an inmate of : the Burnham Industrial School, and was : licensed out to a farmer in Lincoln. He - ran away from there, and coming to Lyttel- ■ ton was employed by Edgar. The second ■ . day after being at work he stole the articles ! from Edgar’s room. He was convicted, j ordered to receive twelve strokes, and to ; be sent back to Burnham. |

Deserting. —John Cameron and Arthur Andrews, two seamen belonging to the barque Craignair, were charged with deserting, and were sent to gaol for fourteen days. Mr Nalder appeared for the captain in this case. EANGIOEA. Tuesday, March 23. (Before Mr B. E. Good, J.P., Mr A. Todd, J.P., and Mr J. L. Wilson, J.P. Breach of Borough Bicycle By-law. —'W. Blackett was charged with riding his bicycle without a light on the night of March 14. In extenuation of the charge he stated that it was a bright moonlight night and he did not think it was necessary to carry a lamp. Constable Johnston stated that owing to some remarks made at a meeting of the Borough Council an impression was abroad that lamps were not required to be carried on moonlight nights. He had not, however, received any instruction to that effect, and he must enforce the by-law as it stood. The Bench said that, under the circumstances a fine of only Is and costs would be inflicted, but bicyclists must understand that in future the by-law made no distinction between light and dark nights. J. Blackett, who was riding with the former defendant was, on a similar charge, fined Is and costs. Alleged Breach op the Impounding Act.—The hearing of a charge against T. H. Bolton of having ridden a horse to the pound instead of driving it, was adjourned for a week to enable the Stipendiary Magistrate to hear legal argument by Messrs Joynt and Deacon, the counsel engaged.