MAGISTERIAL

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIX, Issue 13107, 22 April 1903, Page 5

MAGISTERIAL

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, Arran 20. (Before Mr T. Yorke, J.P., and Mr C- H. Winny, J.P.) Drunkenness. — Two first offenders, charged with drunkenness, were each fined 5s and costs, in default, twenty-four hours’ imprisonment.—Another accused, who did not appear, was fined 10s and costs.—William Scanlon, who appeared in. a very shaky condition, was remanded until Friday for medical treatment. —Maud Hamilton was convicted and discharged for drunkenness, and was convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for'importuning, the operation of the warrant to be suspended on condition that the accused remained in the Samaritan, Home for that period. Cab-drivers and the By-laws.—Wil-liam Brooklyn, 'William Boyd, Alexander Burrows and A. A. Reeve, cab-drivers, pleaded not guilty to charges of infringement of the by-laws regulating hackney carriage traffic, by carrying four persons in vehicles licensed to carry two persons. Mr Harper, who appeared for each of the accused, asked for four weeks’ remand. It was admitted that three persons • were carried, but it was a question of the construction of the by-laws. The remand was granted. , Alleged Theft.-— David Little pleaded not guilty to a charge of having, on April 16, stolen four glasses, value 4s. The police evidence was that the accused had been arrested and convicted for drunkenness, about a fortnight ago, and the glasses were found in his possession. He could give no account of them, and had accordingly been prosecuted for theft. Inquiries had been made at various public-houses, but no claimant had appeared for the suspected articles. The accused, in his evidence, denied all knowledge of the glasses. The Bench dismissed the case. A Reckless Driver. —While driving a vehicle over a city intersection Louis Hamilton ran down a man, injuring him so severely that he had to he taken to the Hospital. The driver, who was alleged to have been cutting over the crossing at a smart trot, did not stop to see the extent of his victim’s injuries, hut drove on and was-soon out of sight. He appeared at the Police Court, and, while pleading not guilty, admitted having knocked the man. down, but denied having driven at an ex, cessive pace. He was fined 10s and costs, oos in all. Prohibition Order. — An order of this nature was issued against .a man, to take effect for one year. (Before Mr R. Beetiaxn, S.M.) Civil Cases. —Judgment for plaintiffs by default was given in the cases of George M’Clatchie and Co. v. W. L. Smith, claim £1 14s ; same v. G. Collier, £1 10s. Collection or Debts. —M. O’Brien v. 0. W. Fisher, claim £1 10s 4d. Mr Cressweil for the plaintiff, and Mr Widdowson for the defendant. The claim was that the plaintiff, O’Brien, employed the defendant to collect certain doubtful debts on- his behalf, arid arranged to remunerate him at the rate of 20 per cent on moneys which he brought in. Among other debts was that of F. Simpson, £ls, which was also given into th'e defendant’s hands, but which was afterwards collected without any instrumentality on his part. This debtor, at the instigation of his employer, arranged to compound with his creditors, and the defendant then claimed and deducted the 20 per cent share of the £7 10s, as had been agreed on" in the first instance. The defence was that it was through the instrumentality of Fisher that the debtor, Simpson, had been induced to compound his liabilities, he having visited the house several times in unsuccessful attempts to interview him. His Worship found that the defendant had not been instrumental, in any way in collecting the money. Judgment would be for the plaintiff. A Totalisator Dividend. —William Milne (Mr Leathern) sued C. E. Fisher for £l3, alleged to have been due as. wages at the rate of £1 a week. In his evidence the plaintiff stated that he had accompanied his employer to a trotting meeting, and the latter had entrusted him with £1 to invest on. a horse, the two to go half shares. The horse won, and plaintiff received half the dividend. On the other hand, it wa.s stated that this money represented payment for wages, and not a-race-course present. The plaintiff had been employed at the rate of 10s a week, and had, besides, received a quantity of clothing. His work had/bcen, unsatisfactory, and. he had finally, left abruptly. Judgment was given for plaintiff for £5 as wages, at the rate of 10s a week, after deducting money and value received by the plaintiff during his employment. Tuesday, April 21. (Before Mr R. Beetham, S.M.) Drunkenness. —Two first offenders -were fined each 5s and costs, with the usual alternative. Theft of a Bicycle. —Herman Northman pleaded guilty to a charge of having stolen a bicycle, the property of John Bricc, and was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. On threo other, charges cf theft he was remanded to Dunedin. Breach of ■ the - Factory Act.— Alice Muff was charged with having, on March 51 and April 1,2 and 5,. worked seven females in her factory after six o’clock in the evening without first obtaining a warrant. The charge was admitted, and the Magistrate inflicted a fine of 20s and costs. Maintenance. —William Hobbs, who did not appear, was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment for having failed to comply with a maintenance order for the support of his wife.—An order against Robert Currie, for the support of his illegitimate child, was increased from 5s to 8s per week.— Herbert Zander was ordered to find a surety of £SO that ho would comply with a maintenance order, in default six months’ imprisonment.—Emma Richards claimed maintenance from her threo children. As it was stated that they were endeavouring to M-ke a home for her, the case was adjourned for fourteen days, Mr Small taking charge of the complainaht in the meantime, —-William Parker was ordered to pay 7s per week towards the support of his illegitimate child. Mr Kippenberger appeared on behalf of the mother. Separation Order. —Joy Sayers (Mr Russell) applied for a separation order against her husband, Haloid Sayers (Mr Springer). The order was made', defendant to find a surety of £IOO for the payment of 20s per week maintenance. Alleged Wife Desertion. —Edward Johnson (Mr Donnelly) was charged with having deserted his wife, Bertha Johnson (Mr Joynt), and three children. The wife stated that her husband for some years had been constantly drunk, and had threatened her with a razor and an axe at various times. He had also brought beer home, and had insisted on a child of three years drinking some. The complainant had several times gone back to her parents, but had returned on defendant’s promises of reform. Now, however, 'she felt she'could not live with him again. Corroborative evidence was given by complainant’s mother, father and sister. The defendant stated that he was only drunk once a week; on Sundays, and had never struck his wife. The Magistrate said that a woman would have been courting disaster to live with such a man. Defendant would be ordered to pay 30s a week towards the support of his wife and children.