MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14981, 29 April 1909, Page 5

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Wednesday, AriuL 28. (Before Mr T. A! B. Bailey, S.M.) Drunkenness. —Harold Williams, a statutory second offender for drunkenness, was fined 10s. He was also fined 10s and costs for having broken a shop window valued at 17s, and ordered to pay the cost of' the_ window, in the alternative seven days' imprisonment. Breach of Prohibition Order.— Alfred Beaumont (Mr Hunt) was fined 10s and costs for a breach of a prohibition order, and a conviction was recorded against him for being on licensed premises during the currency of his order. Indecency.—William Wells and Albert Hayston both pleaded guilty to a charge of committing an indecent act in a public place, and were each fined 6s and costs.—Joseph O'Connor was fined 20s for indecency on the railway platform, and ordered to pay the costs of Court for assaulting a railway guard. By-law Oases. —Joseph M'Dougall, Frederick Beacon and Alfred Beacon were each fined 5s and costs for riding bicycles on public footpaths.—Thomas Harrison, John Matheson, David M'Harg, Albert Andrews and George Desmond were each fined 10s and costs for similar breaches of the by-laws.— Theresa Wisher, when. similarly charged, said that she was" forced on to the footpath because of passing vehicles blocking the roitiway. She was convicted and dischargV.—Alfred William Wells and John Farrow were each fined 10s and ■ costs for leaving their expresses unattended and without locking the wheels.—Charles Kerr and Fred Darlington were fined 10s and costs |or driving vehicles across the intersection of city streets at more than a walking pace.—Herbert Gibb, similarly charged, stated that he was the driver of the mail van, and thought special pro-vision-had been, made to exempt him from the by-law in respect to the pace he could drive. A fine of 5s and costs was inflicted.—Albert Wilder was fined 10s and costs for driving a motor-car at a dangerous speed along Papanui Road, and with driving at night without properly lighting, the car. Disohderlv Behaviour. Emma Smith (Mr Alpers) was fined 5s and costs for behaving in a disorderly manner on licensed premises and refusing to quit when called upon by the licensee to do so. Entering a Dwmxing.—Charles Albert Hood (Mr Donnelly) was charged with entering the dwelling-house of William Ashton, at Riccarton, about 12.30 a.m. on April 12, with intent to commit a crime. ' William Ashton said that he was in bed asleep on the night in question, and shortly after midnight he was aroused by something shaking in his room. When he lit a candle and got up he found accused in his room. Accused was only partially dressed. Witness asked for an explanation, but accused only gesticulated as though he .was not right m his mind. There was nothing amies in the house, nor were there any articles missing. When the witness had got accused off the premises he got a constable to go with him to the place where accused worked, and found accused in bed. In cross-examination, witness said he had known accused intimately for twenty years. Accused had been on several occasions to witness's house as a friend, and he did not ivieh to do accused any injury, and if Hood had given a satisfactory explanation of his presence in the house witness would not nave taken any action to have accused arrested.. Witness, had no reason to suppose he came to the house to steal anything or to do witness any, injury. Corroborative evidence was given by two daughters of the last witness. Constable Hannifin gave evidence of arrest, and stated that accused told him on the way to the police station that he went to bed at 10.45 on the night in question, and did not. go to Ashton's place. He entirely denied the charge made against him. Mr Donnelly contended that'no cast had been proved of any intent on the part of accused, hut the Magistrate considered that a prima facie case had been made out. Accused pleaded not guilty, and reserved his defence. He was then committed to the Supreme /Court for trial. Bail was fixed in one surety of £SO.

LYTTELTON. ( Wednesday, April 28. (Before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M.) Alleged Wife- Desertion.—Gerald O'Hare' was charged with having deserted his wife at LytteltOn, and pleaded not guilty. It was stated by the wife and the police that the couple had only been married a fortnight, and had come over from Sydney. When they arrived in Lyttelton by the Manuka, the husband, who had not paid the steamer fares, went away, and the Union Company retained the luggage, leaving the wife helpless. Subsequently O'Hare returned. The defendant said he did not know whether he had paid the fares or not as ho was drur-.k when they went on hoard at Sydney. The Magistrate asked the two parties if they were willing to patch things up again, and on their favourable reply, .said they had better go and kiss and make it up. The defendant was visibly relieved, and came out of the dock, telling his wife to "come along." U'NTIDYINO THE STREETS.—ThomaS Bagrie, builder, pleaded guilty to having left a heap of rubbish in the public roadway without setting a light upon it as required by the by-laws, and was fined 10s and costs. Sailors' Wages.—Olaf Hallinen sued C. Anderson, master of the ketch Deverou, for £3, being wages due to him as a member of the vessel's crew.' Mr Beswick appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Johnston for the defendant. Mr Johnston said that there was no question as to whether the money would be paid; the defendant wished to have a ruling as to whether* a nailor on a email vessel could legally leave without notice. The wages were in his pocket, and would be paid when the case was over. Mr Beswick quoted the statute, fixing the notice to be given by seamen at twentv-four hours, to be. given at any time" after the completion of a voyage. The Deveron was so small a vessel that she did not require articles. The nlaintiff had given the required notice. Hallinen stated that he had engaged on board the ketch on March 20, and gave notice on April 15, i after two trips to Akaroa and back. Twenty-four hours after giving notice he left the vessel. When he gave notice, the captain said ho could leave if he liked, but he would not pay him any wages, and when the notice had expired ho was again refused hu wages Mr Johnston asked the plaintiff whether it was not the case that, plaintiff left giving notice till the Deveron was on the point of sailing again. Mr Bishop said that that would not make any difference. The witness said that such was not the case, and the Deveron took in cargo two or three days later. He had given the full twenty-four hours' notice. The Magistrate said that if he had b'een satisfied that the, master had not received twenty-four hours' notice he would have ordered the payment of the wages without costs; but as he considered the required notice had been given, he would give judgment for the plaintiff with costs, R. Vance, another member of the Deveron's crew, made a similar claim against C. Anderson. . In his evidence he stated that he gave notice to leave on February 4, and'left next'morning. He did not stay the full twenty-four hours, because he had a dispute with the master, who declined to pay him and said he did not want him. No one else had then been put on in his place. He was unable to explain why he had left bringing the case for so Ions;, Mr

Beswick, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that he had been misled in this case, and the Magistrate dismissed the case. Both men were paid their wages in full in Court. Judgment Summons.—On a judgment summons Percy MumfoTd appeared to answer a claim for £6 8s by Hinds and Cordelin, bakers. He was examined by Mr Cordelin, and stated that he was earning £2 9s lOd per week, but having to keep his wife and six children, five of whom were at school, ho was unable to make any offer at all. The Magistrate commented strongly upon the principle of running up an account for such an essential as bread and allowing it to go unpaid; but as no proof of the debtor's ability to pay had been forthcoming he made, no order. Bad Roofing Iron.—Robert Forbes and Co. (Mr Beswick) claimed £6O 14s Id from Taylor Bros. (Mr Brown) on account of goods supplied. The amount represented the value of a quantity of galvanised corrugated iron., which had been returned, less the amount realised by the subsequent sale of the iron by auction, and plus certain charges for cartage and wharfage of the iron. The defendants paid into Court £4B 0s 4d, and also counterclaimed for £5 18s lOd as expenses incurred in travelling and otherwise incidental to the transaction concerning the iron. The case turned on the condition of a quantity of galvanised iron, which was supplied by the plaintiffs to the order of the defendants, to_ be sent to Akaroa for work that was being done by the defendants. It was contended that the.iron was in bad order and it .was returned. Mr Bishop said that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover £1 9s 4d for cartage and wharfage due on the good delivered, but not the cost of the goods. Ho would, however, reserve his judgment, to consider the question whether the action had been brought in the proper form.