RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 771, 10 December 1886, Page 10

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, December 3. (Before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M.) MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING.

William Williams, on remand, was charged with unlawfully and maliciously wounding Alfred Bowling, chief officer of the ship Timaru, while on the voyage from London to this port on the Bth November. Mr Jellicoe, who appeared for the prisoner, intimated that, in deference to the expression of opinion given by the Court on Wednesday, he would not say anything at present, but would reserve his defence for the Supreme Court. The accused was then committed to stand his trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. All witnesses for both sides were bound over to appear. BREACH OF THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ACT. Edward Seager, iron-founder, was charged with having failed to furnish a statement of his property to the Property Tax Department within the time allowed by law. ' A fine of £s,' with thrice the amount of property tax due, was imposed. A similar offence was brought against Edmondson, Warmington and Co. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the defendant firm. William W. Ludbrook, clerk, stated that the defendants had not furnished any statement of their property. James Ames, property assessor, was not positive that he had left the necessary forms at the defendants’ warehouse. Mr Jellicoe asked that the information should be dismissed ©n the grounds that the form of statement bore . the heading “Property Assessment Act, 1885,” and that the notice served upon the defendants called for returns as set out by the Act of 1879, which, with all its amendments, had been repealed by the Act of 1885. He therefore contended that the defendants were required to make a return under a statute which had been repealed. Mr Jellicoe contended that the information was bad on the face of it, as it ' charged the defendants with alternate offences by the use of the disjunctive conjunction in the phrase “ fail or neglect.” Mr Jellicoe cited authorities to show that such an objection bad been held to be fatal in higher Courts with regard to other charges. Mr Crombie pointed out that in previous cases where this objection had been raised the information had bean amended before the hearing by the substitution of the word “ and.” Heremarked that if it was to© late to take that course now he would be obliged to . lay another information. Mr Wardell dismissed the case, holding that the information was bad, and on the ground urged in the second objection. An application for costs by Mr Jellicoe was refused. A similar charge was preferred against John Rose, builder, and a fine of £5, with three times the amount of tax, was inflicted. A charge against Joseph Mandel was, on the application of Mr Crombie, adjourned for a week. ATTEMPTED SUTCIDE. Harry Walters was charged with having threatened to commit suicide. The accused said he knew nothing about an attempt at suicide, but pleaded guilty to being drunk. Constable Gleeson gave evidence to seeing the accused walk into the water near the gasworks on the previous evening. As the circumstance suggested au attempt at suicide, the constable followed the accused into the water, which was about five feet deep, and brought him ashore. The accused stated to the officer that he had had some words with his wife and wished to drown himself. While he was being taken to the station he asked the constable to let him go 'back and “finish himself.” His Worship ordered the accused to find either one or two sureties to the-.extent of £4O, that he would keep the peace fox, a period of three months., ,

' CIVIL CASES. , George Davis, farmer, brought an action against the Hon Dr Grace, claiming £ls 16s as damages for—lnjuries sustained by a collision with the defendant’s buggy in W illisstreet, on the l3t September. Mr C. Brandon appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Fitz Gerald for the defence. Plaintiff alleged that when leading his horse in Willis-street, on the date in question, he was knocked down by the defendant’s buggy, and received' injuries which had disabled him for some time. For the defence, it was contended that the plaintiff, who has the misfortune to be blind in one eye, was incompetent to drive a cart in a crowded thoroughfare, and that on the occasion of the accident he was not on the proper side of the road. His Worship gave judgment for the defendant, with costs, £1 Is.

Monday, December 6. (Before Messrs J. Maekay, A. McDonald, and W. W. Marten, Justices.) DRUNKENNESS.

Christina Lawson pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness, and wa3 sentenced to a month’s hard labor. A first offender, who was suffering from delirium tremens, v/as remanded for eight days. Alexander Bullock, who bad previously been convicted, was fined 10s, in default 4S hours’ imprisonment. Two first offenders were fined 5s each.

BY-LAW OFFENCES. William August pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to chain the wheel of a cart of which he Was in charge, and was fined 10s and costs. George Bowling pleaded guilty to being the owner of a borse, and was .fined 53 with costs. William Mason pleaded guilty to a charge of being the owner of two wandering horses, and was fined 10s, with costs. John Bid mead f charged with driving cattle not in harness or in yoke, through Tinakori-road in the day time, was fined. Charles Haggit pleaded guilty to a charge of riding a horse on the footpath in Constable-street, and was fined Is. James Hume was charged with driving a horse and cart along the footpath in the same street as in the previous case, and was fined Is. Henry Bradnock was fined 10s, with 7s costs, for leaving a cart unattended. He was charged, further, with carry lights. The Bench were of opinion that one penalty would suffice for both charges, and dismissed the second case.

Tuesday, December 7. (Before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS.

Samuel Boice was charged with having been drunk on the 4th inst. Another charge was preferred against the accused of contempt of Court by appearing in the Court on Monday in an intoxicated state. He pleaded guilty to both charges. For the first offence a fine of ss, or 24 hours in default, was imposed. As he had been in custody since the day previous, his Worship thought that was sufficient punishment for the second offence. LARCENY. Henry Cox, a small boy, was brought up on charge of having stolen a pair of shoes valued at 8s 6d, the property of Frederick Jones, bootmaker, Manners-street, and au overcoat the property of M. Bannister. The accused admitted that he had taken the shoes from Mr Jones’ counter, and as they would not fit him he had left them in a loft at Mr Francis Buck’s residence, Tory-street. Mr Jones deposed to missing the boots on Friday last. Mr Buck gave evidence to finding the shoes in the,loft, and stated that the accused boy had been in the habit of getting food at his house for some weeks. The accused had led the Buck family to believe that fie was sleeping at home and going to school, while in reality the poor child had been sleeping under houses, having been turned out of home by, bis father. As the father was not in attendance the case was adjourned till next morning in order that the parent might be present. The hearing of the other charge was also adjourned. NEGLECTED CHILD. Francis William Peterson was charged with being a neglected child. Mr G. S. Graham, one of the Justices who presided when the boy was recently before the Court on a similar charge, stated that after the case he had taken the boy home, but he there became such a nuisance that he was glad to get rid of him. On Sunday last, after the family retired, the boy returned, stating that be had been sleeping in the plantation in Fitzherbert-terrace with two men, but they had kicked him out of the airy lodging. The witness gave the child some food and a bed that night, and handed him over to the police next morning, with a view of his committal to an industrial school. Mrs Peterson was in attendance, ’ and stated to his Worship that she could do nothing with the child, and thought he should be put under proper control. His Worship committed the accused to the Burnham Industrial School u'fitil he attained the age of 15. WIFE DESERTION. Thomas Steward, alias McGregor, on remand from Monday, was charged with having deserted his wife and six children. His Worship discharged the prisoner on his finding two sureties of £25 each for the maintenance of his family in the future, and paying £3 18s, expenses incurred in bringing him back from Dunedin. FAILING TO PROVIDE, Alexander McDonald, for failing to provide his wife and family with adequate means of support, was remanded till next morning. CIVIL CASES. Judgments for plaintiffs were given in the following civil cases.: —United Importers’ Company v F. J. France, £l6 13s, and £2 93 costs ; Duthie and Co. v Nicholls, £7 Is Bd, and 11s costs ; United Importers’ Company v R. J. Thayer, £45 2s 4d, and £3 13s costs; Christian Toxward v James Walker, £l7, and £4 11s costs; Wellington Meat Company v George Trask, £3 14s Id, and 7s costs ; J. Kitchen and Sons v Thomas C. D’Arcy, £8 lls lOd, and£l 12s costs ; Susan Baker v Jas. Walden, 12s, rent, possession to be given up on Saturday next; David J. Murphy v Charles Ericsson, 17s 6d, and 6s costs ; Kilpatrick and Campbell v George Thompson, £2 14s Id, and 6s costs ; Terrini and Co. v A. Mansford, £9 4s ; G. Crawford v R. Jones, of Masterton, claim £3O 7a 2d, amount of a promissory note. Mr Skerrett appeared for plaintiff. In the adjourned case of T. Pepperell v O’Driscoll, claim £B, for timber used in connection with the Waikanae Bridge, judgment for defendant with costs was recorded. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs £4 lls, was given in the case of E. J. Toxward against James Walker, claim £l7, for services as valuator. Mr W. T. L. Travers appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Stafford for the defendant. Walter James Daddoo v Thompson, Shannon, and Co, claim £S7 10s, being the amount of three mouths’ wages, and damages for wrongful dismissal. Mr W. T. L. Travers appeared for the plaintiff,' and Mr Stafford defended. It appeared that the defendant firm wrote over to a firm in Melbourne (Messrs Patterson, Laing, and Bruce) with the object of procuring a competent person to take charge of the woollen and clothing department. The plaintiff interviewed the Melbourne firm with reference to the situation. The firm informed him that the salary was £350 a year, and that the letter received from Thompson and Shannon authorised them to give no engagement to anyone. The plaintiff told Mr Bruce, a member of the firm, that it was a serious thing to go to New Zealand without the length of the engagement being stated, to which Mr Bruce replied that the firm (Thompson and Shannon) would treat him well and he need have no fear. He came to New Zealand and entered the service of Thompson, Shannon, and Co. on the 11th

June. There was a stock-taking about six weeks after he arrived. The firm made no complaint against him, but on the Ist October he received notice that his services would not be required any longer after that month, and later he received a month’s pay. The plaintiff understood, although no definite period of engagement was stipulated iu the letter, that the term “no engagement”, meant for the period of stock-taking to stock-taking, which is about six months. He stated that the custom of the trade was that an engagement always lasted from year to year, or at least six months. According to the agreement he considered that he should have been kept iu the defendant’s employ till the next stocktaking in January. This was the basis on which the claim was founded. For the defence, Inspector Browne was called, and he stated that the plaintiff was a fellow passenger of his on the voyage over from Melbourne. The plaintiff during a conversation told him that he was going to manage the clothing department in Thompson and Shannon’s warehouse in Wellington, and that he was to receive something over £3OO a year, with a month’s notice, ip case of dismissal, on the other side. Mr Henry, present manager of the clothing' department, gave evidence to the effect that he came over from Melbourne on similar terms to those of the plaintiff, and perfectly understood that if the firm were dissatisfied with him, they could dismiss him with a month’s notice. If he wished to leave, a month’s notice would be sufficient for the firm. The witness stated that he had had thirty years' experience in the trade, twenty of which had been in Melbourne and Sydney, and he never heard of such a thing as the plaintiff had stated, that the trade-meaning of the words “no engagement,” was from stock-taking to stock-taking. He had never heard of more than a month’s notice being given on either side. Mr Stafford was about to call other evidence, when Mr Travers stated that, after having heard the preceding evidence, he did not wish to proceed further with the case. The plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited with costs.

Wednesday, December 8. (Before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M.) FAILING to provide.

The case against Alexander McDonald, for failing to provide for the maintenance of his wife and four children, was adjourned for a week, ASSAULTS. Nellie Hamilton pleaded not guilty to a charge of having assaulted Lily Leonard in John-street on Monday night. Mr Devine appeared for the prosecution. Evidence being brought in support of the charge, his .Worship imposed a fine of Is, and ordered the accused to find one surety of £2O and two of £lO each that she would keep the peace for three mouths. Charges of having assaulted Lily Leonard and used abusive and obscene language to and assaulted Mary Campbell were brought against Polly Harper. After the evidenoe had been taken, she was dealt with in a similar manner to Hamilton.

John Townsend was charged with having assaulted George Cochrane on the 24tb, and on the offence being proved the defendant was fined 40s, with £1 8s costs. Mr Thompson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Menteath defended. YOUTHFUL CRIMINALS. William Hodges, aged 13 years, pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing the sum of £1 17s from the premises of Messrs Laery and Campbell on the Bth instant. Frederick Townsend, manager for Laery and Campbell, deposed that about 5 p.m. on the date in question, while he was passing from the grain store into the shop, he saw the accused taking money from the till. Accused stooped behind the counter when he saw witness, who seized him, and then gave him in charge. The accused pleaded very hard to be let go, saying that it would drive his mother mad. He gave his name as Tom Brown, and said that he had been sent into the shop by another boy whose name he did not know. It appeared that the accused had taken off his boots before he left home, and put on a pair of goloshes, which enabled him to enter tbe shop without making much noise. His Worship remanded the accused till this morning. Henry Cox, aged 11, on remand, was charged with having stolen a coat from the Mount Cook School, the property of Montague Bannister, value 10s 6d. Accused pleaded guilty. There was another charge against the accused of having stolen a pair of shoes from the shop of Frederick Jones, bootmaker, Manners-Btreet, to which charge he pleaded guilty on Monday. The boy’s father was in Court yesterda3 T , aud stated that he had no control over him. Inspector Browne produced a basket containing several cakes of tobacco and a bundle of matches, which the accused had said he could use in a fortnight, and which he said he had bought. His Worship remanded the accused till this morning, intimating that he would probably see his way clear to make the father contribute toward the boy’s maintenance in an industrial school. REMOVING SOIL. Jeremiah P. Shields was charged on summons, at the instance of the Kilbirnie Road Board, with having removed soil without authority from the esplanade at Island Bay on the Ist October. Mr Skerrett appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Barton defended. After hearing evidence, the facts of which were elicited in a civil case which was heard some time ago, his Worsbip adjourned the case sine die. BREACH OF THE PAWNBROKERS’ ACT. Eleazaer Metz, an assistant pawnbroker to Maurice Fruhauf, was charged with having received goods in pawn from a boy named Walden, who was apparently under the age of 14 years, and thereby committed a breach of the Pawnbrokers Act. Mr Gully, who appeared for the defence, pointed out to the Court that it had been the practice with pawnbrokers in the city to treat children who brought notes from . their parents as representing the principals in the matter, from whom they considered they practically received the articles. Although the section of the Act under which the charge was brought was intended to entirely prevent the employment of children in the matter at all, he did not think the case of a bona fide messenger came within the meaning of tbe Act. His W orsliip

thought that the seotion clearly intended that the reception of goods in pawn from a child should be prohibited, whether in the capacity of messenger or not. Mr Gully pointed out that the police did not press for more than a nominal fine. His Worship would not be satisfied with a nominal penalty. He thought he should inflict a smart one, aa an example to the trade. His Worship inflicted a flue of £5 and costs, 7s, remarking that he considered the fine a nominal one, and it would be sufficient to call the attention of the trade to the matter.

The criminal business at tbe Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday was taken by Messrs W. M. Maskell, T. G. Macarthy, and J. Lockie, Justices. A first offender for drunkenness was ordered to be kept in custody till the rising of the Court. A charge 1 was preferred against Ferdinand Holm, master of the barque Kentish Lass, of having used threatening language to Arthur Taplin, cook and steward of the vessel. The complainant made an application to the Court that the defendant should be bound over to keep the peace. Captain Holm positively denied that be had made use of threatening language toward the complainant, which statement was borne out by Captain Grant and the. mate of the vessel, who were on board, and who stated that had Captain Holm made use of the lauguage attributed to him they would have heard him. The Bench dismissed the case. Mr H. H. Travers represented the plaintiff, and applied to the Court to annul the contract existing between the parties, as Captain Holm had reduced the plaintiff’s wages on the return trip from Cambridge Gulf. The application was refused. These cases were heard in the jury room. Mr Wardell, R.M., occupied the Bench in the Court during the further hearing of the civil case, Houguez v Robinson. After evidence had been taken, the case was further adjourned till Tuesday morning.