MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4980, 12 April 1889, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

7 TlMAßU—Friday, 12th April, 1889. | (Before O. A. Wray, Esq., R.M.) > DRUNKENNESS. i A first offender charged with drunkenness ! was cautioned and discharged. APPLE STEALING. Three boys named Francis, Henry, and Alexander Burns, representatives of two families in Sandietown in no way related except in mischief making, were charged with stealing 2s worth of apples from the garden of M. G. O’Reilly. Henry and Alexander were in charge of their mother who marshalled them in front of the prisoner’s dock, and was proceeding to give his Worship a lucid outline cf tho case, when she was quietly told to sit down. Francis was in charge of his father, and with Alexander pleaded “ guilty,” Henry pleaded “not guilty His Worship decided to hear particulars of the case, and Mr O’Reilly then proved to catching two of the boys in his garden on Sunday last, and to the fruit being stolen. A boy named Sutton also gave evidence respecting the accused being in the garden and taking fruit. In reply to His Worship Sergeant-Major Mason said that unfortunately two of the lads (Alexander and Francis) were very bad and had been previously before tho court. They were a regular nuisance to Sandietown, and were continually getting into mischief of one kind and another. The father of Francis said that he was 13 and went to school regularly, and the mother of the other two lads said that they did not go to school regularly. They would not go, but would “ play the wag.” They sometimes got into mischief and were very troublesome. There were many other boy s as bad as her sons, and though she had not come there to take their part exactly, she reminded His Worship that “ boys would be boys.” Burns senior said that generally he had very little trouble with his boy. His Worship after carefully considering the charge said that Henry Burns would be discharged ; Francis would be let go on condition that his father severely chastised him, and Alexander who, it appeared from the police evidence put in in writing, had been the worst of the trio, would receive six strokes of a birch rod, from a police constable. His Worship cautioned Mrs Burns to see that her boys did not appear in court again, and also to sec that they attended school regularly. UNREGISTERED DOGS. For keeping unregistered dogs G. C. Miles and W. Whitcombe were fined 10s each and costs, PAL3E PRETENCES. Eugene McLean alias Fred. Malcolm alias Hugh McLean was charged on remand with obtaining board and lodging by false representation froai Digby Andrews at Timaru between the 27th December 1888 and 28th January 1839 to the value of £5 15s. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of false pretences, though he admitted that he was guilty of obtaining the board and lodging. Sergeant Major Mason said that the charge was laid under section 28, subsection 4 of the Police Offences Act. Accused had for a considerable time obtained board and lodging by a peculiar mode of fraud. He had on going to Andrews represented himself to be an engine driver on the railways. He had left of a morning stating that he was going away on the line and at night he would come back “ black” as if he had been on an engine. Then he would clean himself up and sit down to dinner. This went on for some time, and on accused suddenly leaving Andrews made inquiries and discovered the fraud. A warrant was then got and accused arrested by Con- { stable Fitzgerald, of Ashburton. SergeantMajor Mason then called Digby Andrews who i proved to the facts as disclosed by the Sergeant Major, and said further that he had arranged to take the accused at 4s per day. , To accused: You paid me for one day. You said that you wore an engineer on the railway j and never mentioned anything about the j Mount Somers line.

Mr Joseph Jones, stationmaster at Timaru, and Mr Stephenson, locomotive foreman at Timaru, both proved that accused had never been employed on tho railway at Timaru. This was the case for the prosecution, and his Worship then stated that lie would hear the further charge against accused, for on or about Ist November, 1888, at Timaru, obtaining board and lodging by false representations to the value of £2 from Thomas O’Driscoll, under the name of “ O’Hara.”

Accused pleaded guilty, but added that he did not remember giving Mr O'Driscoll any name.

Thomas O’Driscoll said accused came to his hotel about Ist November last, and giving the name of “ O’Hara ” spun the same yarn about being an engine-driver as he had done to Mr Andrews; accused left without settling up. Accused then in the course of a rambling statement said that ho had not “ blackened” himself up for the purpose of committing a fraud on Messrs Andrews and O’Driscoll. He had never blackened his face intentionally, but supposed it had got dirty knocking about the breakwater.

Detective Neil on being called proved to seeing accused loafing about the town and breakwater, and so far as ho could ascertain never doing a stroke of work.'

Accused denied this. He had worked all his life, but lately owing to having a bad hand, could not do anything. Ha had all along expected to got light work of some kind. When in town ho had foolishly gone to Andrews and O’Driscoll’s to get board as he was sick and tired of the road, and fully expected to be able some time to pay it off. He said he could name many persons whom he had worked for, but he did not name them. His Worship said that the case was a very bad one. Accused in blackening his face and making the statements named had acted in a very impudent manner. He would bo sentenced to 3 months imprisonment on each charge, tho sentences to be cumulative. The court then rose.