MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIX, Issue 13097, 9 April 1903, Page 5

MAGISTERIAL.

, CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, Abril 8. . (Before Mr J. Hamilton, J.P., Mr W. Prudi.ee, J.P., and Mr P. Pender,, J.P.) Drunkenness, —Margaret Webster, a very old offender, with three convictions on her record 'during the past six months, was sent to gaol for three months.—William Henry was charged with having been drunk, with having used obscene language, and with having damaged a shako, value 11s. He was fined 5s and costs, in default 1 twenty-fonr hours’ imprisonment, on the first charge, 10s and costs, in default seven days’ imprisonment, on the second charge, and ordered to pay the value of the shako,, in default seven days’ imprisonment.—Two first offenders were each fined 5s and costs,, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment, for drunkenness. Vagrancy. —James Crowley, charged with being an idle and disorderly person, and having no lawful visible means of support, pleaded not guilty. He was sent to gaol for a month. Margaret Isles, and Eliza Le Strange, two women of the unfortunate class, were each sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for vagrancy. —Fanny Seymour (Mr Donnelly), who made her first appearance, pleaded guilty to a charge of being without lawful visible means of support. After bearirig the evidence the Bench adjourned the case for a day to enable the accused’s parents to be communicated with. Mr Donnelly said that he had been instructed that the father was under the impression that the accused was in a domestic situation. —Lizzie Ankins was' sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for being without lawful visible means of support, the warrant not to issue provided that she stayed in the Samaritan Home for that period. A Valueless Cheque. —Denis Fitzgerald, alias William Joyce, pleaded guilty to a charge of halving obtained £5 by moans of a valueless cheque. The evidence, was that the accused, who had four previous convictions recorded against him, had stolen a cheque from one hotel, filled it up and presented it at another hotel. He was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. Remanded. —Arthur Parris (Mr Cassidy) was charged with the theft of £5. He was remanded until April 16, bail being allowed in two sureties of £25 each. Pkohibition Orders. —Throe orders of this nature were issued to take effect for one year. The Railway Regulations. —John Thompson, who failed to appear, was charged with quitting a train while in motion. There was no appearance of the informant, and on the application of SubInspector Dwyer the case was adjourned.— Hetty Luke (Mr Hunt) was fined 10s and costs for a similar offence. The By-Laws. —For burning rubbish in Sydenham, without first obtaining a permit from the Council, Edward Turpin was fined 10s and costs.—Joseph Butterfield, the driver of a licensed i hackney carriage, who was charged with carrying more passengers than he was entitled to do, did not appear. He was fined 10s and costs.—Nicholas Columbus, a fish hawker, pleaded not guilty to a charge of refusing to move on when requested to do so by the police. Mr Donnelly appeared for hinq and after hearing evidence a fine of 10s and costa was imposed.—Thomas' Charles Dale was fined 10s and costs for allowing ten cows to wander oii Fendalton Road.—Rymond Wood, charged with rescuing the- same cattle,- was fined 10s and costs. Bbeaking Windows.- —George Owles, a tearful small boy, charged with breaking windows, was cautioned and discharged. Mr Leaitham appeared for him. LYTTELTON. ' Wednesday, April 8. (Before Air R. Beetham, S.M.) Alleged Theft. —James Sullivan pleaded not guilty to a charge of having stolen a lady’s macintosh, value 15s,' the property of an owner unknown. Sergeant Rutledge stated that the macintosh was supposed to have been stolen from- the s.s. Tongariro, at Constable Connell gave evidence that he-arrested the man on Norwich Quay. Accused was concealing the macintosh, and after it had been taken away from him he ran away. His Worship granted a remand- for eight days. Case Dismissed.-— James Alexander Driscoll pleaded not guilty to a charge that, being a prohibited person, ho procured liquor from the British Hotel. Constable Tull stated that on -March 31 he saw a man named M’Pherson come out of the British Hotel with a bottle and go to the urinal. Driscoll went into the urinal, and witness followed h-im, and found Driscoll drinking beer from the bottle. M’Pherson. had runaway. Constable Moore gave corroborative evidence. ■ Sergeant Rutledge said that M-Pherson, had left tho colony. ’Mr Beswick submitted that there -was no evidence of accused procuring liquor from the British Hotel. M’Pherson might have bought the drink, and given it to him without, Driscoll procuring it. His Worship upheld the objection, and dismissed the information. Alleged Assault and Robbery.—Alfred George Driscoll was charged with having, on April 7, at Lyttelton,, assaulted Joseph Cullen, and robbed him of the sum of- £7 10s. ' He elected 1 to be tried by a jury. Air Beswick appeared for him. The prosecutor, whose face was much - bruised, . stated that on Tuesday evening lie was in, company with accused and another man for about half an hour, and had some drinks at the Mitre Hotel. He paid for them, and kept his money in a pocket-book, in which there was £6 or £7. They asked him to go for a waik. He had had a few drinks, but knew what he was doing. They went together to the tunnel mouth. Driscoll, assisted by the other man, knocked him. down and searched his pockets. He was rendered unconscious, but remembered that on© of them had a hand on his mouth. One of them said, “Finish him.” He was struck and kicked on the.head, face and side. To Mr Beswick: He had- had two or three drinks before he met tho men. The -prosecutor seemed somewhat uncertain as to his ■movements during the evening. The accused was remanded to April 17. CrviL Case. —R. J. Henry v. P. D. Mitchell, Mr Beswick for plaintiff, Mr Flesher for defendant. The claim was on a promissory note for £2l; £2 0s 6d of that amount was for-drinks,'-'the remainder for board. The original amount of the note’ was £2l 15s 6d. and, 15s '6d was paid in October last. Since he had given the note, defendant had paid plaintiff some money for cash lent and for drinks. In cross-examination, plaintiff stated that he could not swear when he wrote the name of Mitchell on the note, and cancelled the stamp. It- might have been wjt-hin the last three weeks, before he took out the summons. Tlie date on the stamp was 18 —10 —02.. Since the note was given, the defendant had paid him £6 15s 6d ; £4 of this wiis for drinks, and 15s for cash lent; only 15s 6d was off the note. Plaintiff had charged him 10s 6d for. a lawyer’s letter. Defendant was running up a weekly account for drinks at the time, and did not indicate that the payments were on account of the note. The defendant deposed that when he gave the -note he arranged to pay 10s a week off it. He paid several amounts off it,- and entered the payments in a. notebook. They amounted to £6 10s. He ran a score for a few drinks while he was making the payments. It was understood that these were to be credited to the bill, and not for drinks. Henry Beaumont deposed that he had several times been- present when Mitchell made payments to Henry. Mitchell would say, “Here’s so much off that account,” or “off that affair.” Mitchell’s last payment was £1 10s. His Worshio said that, as a' question of fact, he would hold that these payments had been oft the bill. There was the legal question of whether the bill, having been riven in part for an illegal considerationdrinks supplied—that illegal considerationinvalidated the whole bill. The case was adjourned sine die for argument-at ChristchuioK