MAGISTERIAL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16137, 14 January 1913, Page 5

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Monday, January 13. (Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) Drunkenness. —Three first offenders for drunkenness wore each fined Ss and costs.—Edward Crunch, a second offender, was also fined 5s and costs. Drink and Complications. —George Newman pleaded guilty to two charges, one of being drunk and the other of stealing two cucumbers, valued at Gd. Accused said that ho committed the theft while drunk and had no recollection of it. On the first charge ho was convicted and discharged, and on the second convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. The Magistrate stated that accused would not be called provided he went back to his work in the country.— David Sullivan pleaded guilty to two charges—drunkenness and using obscene language. He was convicted and discharged on the first charge, and fined 40s and costs on the second.

Disorderly Behaviour. —A young man named Edward Nicholls pleaded guilty to having behaved in a disorderly manner while drunk. Sergeant i Johnson stated that accused was arrested in Cathedral Square, where he had taken off his coat and offered to fight all and sundry. He was fined 30s and ordered to pay witnesses’ expenses. Three days were allowed accused in which to find the money. An Old .Offender, —John Maine, alias Mayo, the possessor of a lengthy record, pleaded guilty to a charge of having stolen an overcoat, gloves and i muffler, of a total value of £6, from ! the Riccarton racecourse. Accused I stated that hp had been drunk for j three days at the time the offence was < committed and knew nothing at all about it. All his offences had been committed while drunk. If given a chance he would take out a prohibition order against himself. He had been | working at a mill in the Marlborough ■ district and could go back to his job. Chief-Detective Bishop said that the 1 articles had been stolen from a shed , on the Riccarton racecourse during the races, and the overcoat had been found in accused’s possession. A sentence of three months’ imprisonment was imposed. Civil Oases. —ln the following cases judgment was given for plaintiffs by dofault:—staling and Co. (Mr Herman) v. Thomas Easton Smythe, £4 14s lid; George William Homo and Charles A. Mylire, trustees in the estate of \V. A. Tribe (Mr Dougall) v. E. Hanson, £5 ss: Booth, Macdonald and Ltd. (Mr k llerman), v. Ngawliiti, £35 7s 6d; F. Hobbs and Co. v. T. F. Adams, £9 14s 3d; Anderson’s, Ltd. (Mr Herman), v. George Edward Bray, £1 2s 10d; F. D. Kesteven (Mr Rowe for Mr Leathern) v. J. H. East, £l2; J. D. Williams and Co (Mr Johnston) v. S. Buckley. 11s 9d; same v. G. Midgley, £3 5s 4cl; J. Warded (Mr Rowe for Mr Leathern) v. Joseph Barron, £2 10s; Kincaid’s, Ltd. (Mr Wright) v. J. B. Lc Motte, £lO 11s Id; Henry Berry and Co. (Mr Flesher) v. William Eady, £2; Canterbury Motor-car, Horse Drivers’ and Livery ployees’ Industrial Union of Workers v. T. "Scarlett. £1 3s; same v. F. J. Watts, £2 8s; same v. George_E. Horne, £1; same v. T. Forbes, £1 ss. Judgment Summonses. Craddock Hardware Co., Ltd. (Mr Wright), v. W. A. Wooster, £1 18s 3d. Judgment debtor did not appear, and an order was made for the _ payment of the amount forthwith, in default fortyeight hours’ imprisonment.—Bennett Bros. (Mr Rowe) v. H. F Hurroll, £G 18s 3d. There was no . ppearance of the judgment debtor, and an order was made for immediate payment, in default seven days’ imprisonment.—F. D. Kesteven (Mr Rowe) v. John H. East, £4 Bs. There was no appearance of the judgment debtor, and an order for immediate payment was made, in default five days’ imprisonment. —E. C. Brown (Mr Rowe) v. T. Scarlett, £5 10s Gd. In the absence of the judgment debtor an order was made for payment forthwith, in default five days’ imprisonment. Defended Cases. —ln the judgment summons case, W. E. Munday and Sons (Mr Rowe) v. S. H: George, £5 18 Bd, defendant gave evidence. _ He stated that ho was not living with his wife. He earned £2 12s 6d a week, paid 18s a week for board, and contributed to the support of the children. He also helped to support his sister. The debt had been incurred by his wife. Defendant was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, in default five days’ imprisonment, the warrant to ho suspended if he paid 2s a week' off the amount. A Double Claim. —Walter Spiller (Mr M. Donnelly) claimed £3O from Charles Re3tall (Mr Wright). £ls for trespass and £ls for an alleged assault. Mr ' Donne”y stated that plaintiff occupied a-shop and dwelling in Colombo Street, Sydenham, and there was a factory , next door. On November 27 defendant, ' with a workman, came on to plaintiff’s property and stated that he was going to put a new window in the wall of the factory. Plaintiff told him that he would not allow tho work to be done until the owner of the property had been consulted. Defendant went away, but returned later with the workman, and brought trestles and tools on to the place. Plaintiff repeatedly told defendant to leave the premises. Defendant had stated that he meant to go on with the work, and'rushed at plaintiff with the trestles, nearly knocking him down. After defendant commenced the work, plaintiff again ordered him off, and shook the trestles. Defendant then hit him on the nose so that it bled profusely. Defendant rang up the police, hut they were not in. A little later a constable passed. He was called in. and t.lio defendant did not deny the offence. The nlnintiff detailed what had occurred on the date in question. He objected to the work being done on his premises, for the window would open on to his yard, and he objected because his wife had boon ordered to sleep in a tent in the yard. The blow which lie received was a severe one. and he felt the effects for some time. On the same day as the : assault occurred, witness had been operniod on for an affliction in his ear. Richard Had field, Dorothy Hill and Constable "Williams also gave evidence. For the defence it was contended that defendant acted under instructions ’ from the owner of the property. Defendant had called upon plaintiff and | had obtained his consent to do the work. On the day in question plaintiff said that he would not allow the work to proceed until he saw the landlord. Defendant went and saw the landlord and brought him along to see plaintiff, but plaintiff mado no effort to meet the proprietor. Plaintiff seemed to be in a temper, and as soon as defendant entererd the place plaintiff rushed at him. Defendant bad bad great provocation. Plaintiff had first seized him by the throat- and refused to leave go, ■ whereupon defendant struck him. Defendant, Charles Restall, gave evidence on tlie lines of counsel’s remarks. Ho received plaintiff’s permission to do the work and witness went into tho yard and showed plaintiff where the window would go. Plaintiff, when witness entered the place later, after bringing the landlord down to assure plaintiff that the work had to he done, rushed at him and attempted to assault him. Later when witness was on the scaffolding plaintiff tried to upset it. When witness got down plaintiff seized him by the throat, and as he would not leave f r o witness hit him. Plaintiff started i to erv and went inside still crying, j J H.‘ Sherwood, W. Oliver and F. H. ! N Myers nl r o nave evidence. Jho | Ma"is! rate stated' that he did not. wish j counsel to address the Court. Ho reviewed the facts as shown by the ovi- i d enc « Trespass had been committed, but "ho could nut accent the u'niuj.ff’s statement that tlu ' ! 'sshult bad been nnnrovokecl. There had boon great provocation Ho would give judgment for 40s without costs on the charge of tree- ' pass, Q «d dismiss tho charge ot assault.