MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVI, Issue 14169, 18 September 1906, Page 5

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, September 17. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Drunkenness. —Charles Mack was fined 10s and costs, in default fortyeight hours’ imprisonment for drunkenness, and 40s for procuring liquor while prohibited. Ho stated that he had been presented with the liquor while on the train from Dunedin. Mr Bishop: “It doesn’t matter how you got it. Of course, you drank it, if you got drunk. —-George -M’Kinley was fined 20s, in default one month's imprisonment, for disorderly behaviour while drunk.—Two first offenders were each fined 5s and costs, and a third, who had been found drunk on the railway platform, was fined 10b and costs, in default forty- ; eight hours’ imprisonment. 1 Man-of-Wae Deserter. Arthur Tabor was charged with having, on February 28, deserted from 11.M.5. Powerful at Lyttelton. Sergeant Norwood stated that the accused had been placed, on H.M.S. Pioneer, and the charge would therefore be withdrawn. Remanded. —Thomas Speed Sibhald pleaded not guilty to a charge of having been found on the previous night at Cashmere, with- [ out lawful excuse, on the premises lof Samuel Wilson. He stated that ho had permission to go there. When given the option of being tried summarily or by a jury he elected to go to the Supreme Court. , “ You are rer j mantled till to-morrow,” said the j Magistrate briefly. —John. Gray, who I was charged in company with Sibhald, 1 ."iso pleaded not guilty, and said he had been privileged to go on the premises. He was remanded till the following day, to enable him to procure the services of a solicitor. Judgment by Default.— ln the following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs with costs: — Henry Turkington v. Godfrey BaumbloIburg, 10s; Taylor and Oakley v. Burns Bros., 13,3 lOd; Fred Cross and Son v. Alexander M’Rae, £7 Is 6cl; J. W. Flcsher (Mr Cuningham) v. Sarah Taylor, £4 ss; Henry Berry and Co. (Mr Flesher) v. K. Stewart, £2B 9s 4d; W. , Strange and Co. (Mr Fleeher) v. Walter | Williams, £1 13s 2d; Trade Auxiliary j Company (Mr Murphy) v. J. A. Rogers, ' £6 9s 6d ; same v. 11. Hodson, £7 Os 3d; William White and Co. v. John Mackenzie, £ll 6s 4d; same r. Edward William Jenkins, £36 4s 4d; Williamson and Co. (Mr Flesher) v. F. B. Robinson, £l3 0® sd; H. J. Gardiner (Mr Cuningham) v. Christina Boughton, £2 18s 3d; George -Payling (Mr Raphael) v. M. W. Ferguson, £76 9s 4d; F. Cross and Son v. J. Wright, £3 16s Gd; A. J. White v. J. T. Maine, £6 8s 4d. Judgment Summons. —Hulbert, Slaymaker and Co. (Mr Cuningham) applied for an order on a judgment summons against A. G. Owen, for £5 Os 6d. The judgment creditor said ho Would be satisfied with 15b a month, but the debtor professed inability to pay more than 10s. After an examination, the Magistrate ordered the amount to be paid, in default seven days’ imprisonment, the warrant not to issue so long as payments of 10s ia month were made, commencing on October 17. KAIAPOI. . Monday, September 17. (Before Mr Y. G. Day S.M., and Mr J. H. Blackwell, J.P.)Breacuks of Borough _ By-laws.—C. E. St John, for riding his motor-cycle on a footpath, was fined 10s and costs, 7®.—Lancelot Baker, for riding his bicycle on the footpath, was fined 10s and costs.—W. Robb, for having a oow at large, was fined 5s and 7s costs; and Josiah- Hendy, for having two horses at largo, was lined a similar amount. Procuring Liquor.— George Syvret, a prohibited person, pleaded guilty to a charge of having procured liquor. . In reply to! the Magistrate as to where-he ; procured the liquor; he .declared that he found it—picked it up. Defendant having been fined for a similar offence on four occasions each time £5, the Bench inflicted a fine of £lO and costs, 7s.—B. Knight, against whom a prohibition order is in force, was charged m ith having , procured liquor. , He pleaded ' , not, guilty. Constable Simpson stated that ho received a message that Knight and Syvret were drinking together at .the former’s place. He met Syvret near Knight’s house, ; under the influence of liquor. Defend- * ant met- witness at the gate, and he, ■ too, was under the influence of liquor. ‘ He denied 'that he was prohibited, and ‘ eaid he would fight it out, the order i being no good. Witness said, “You > have had drink,” and he replied in the 1 i affirmative. Constable Rings, who accompanied the previous witness, corroI berated his evidence. Hubert Knight, j nephew of defendant, called by the ! police, stated that his uncle was not under the influence of liquor. H. W. Farrar, who saw defendant before the police came, stated that by his behaviour he judged him to be. intoxicated. Defendant, who did not deny having had some liquor, said there was a law point involved, which he proceeded to argue. Mr Day said he did not require argument, A person being under the influence of liquor was sufficient proof that he had procured it. Defendant was fined £2 and costs, 7s. , A Charge Withdrawn. —B. Knight ■was charged with using insulting language in Conway Matson and Co. s auction mart. He pleaded not guilty. Mr Day asked whether a sale was in progress. Constable Simpson replied that the sale was just over. His Worship pointed out that it was no offence unless a sale was in progress, and the charge was withdrawn. Violent Assault.—N. L. Thompson and J . Driscoll were charged with navinor assaulted George Martin on September 6. Mr Papprill appeared for accused and Mr Harvey for the informant. Dr Crawford gave evidence that on September 8. he examined complainant and found him suffering from two very bad black eyes, a bruise on the right side of the head, a severely bruised finger, and a pain- ! ful region in the side over the liver, but there was no appearance of a bruise. G. Martin, the informant, stated • that at 10.20 p.m. he was going home from the Workingmen’s Club, and when in Jones Street he was suddenly knocked down with a blow in the face, and when on the ground was punched about the head. He got up, and Thompson was standing in front of him. After evidence had been given, Mr Day said Driscoll had nothing to answer, and the charge against him would be dismissed. Thompson, in defence, denied that ho went to Jones Street with the intention or assaulting complainant. He met him, and the grievance he had against him came into his mind,' and he asked Martin why he called him a liar, and said he was no man. With that Martin hit him, and, in self-defence, he knocked him down, but did not kick him. The Magistrate said the assault was a premeditated and unprovoked one, and I Thompson would be fined £5 and costs, I £4 6s. Disobeying a Court Order. —-Charles Burney, for failing to comply with an order to maintain his child, being about £SO in arrears, was ordered to pay £lO before October 31, and the balance at tli© rate of 15s per week, in default on© month’s imprisonment.