MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2952, 26 November 1900, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—MONDAY, NOV. 26, 1900. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., SAL, and J. Jackson and W. M. Howe, Esqs., J.Ps.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was fined 5s or 24 hours. ,

PROHIBITION. A prohibition order was issued against a labourer.

ASSAULT,

Donald Bell' was charged with having assaulted William Arthur Winkler, his stepson. Mr Raymond appeared for the informant, and said that since the matter had been brought before the Court, the defendant had seen the lad and endeavoured to settle the case. He had admitted the assault, and Winkler did not now wish to press for a penalty provided that the defendant pleaded guilty, expressed his regret in wilting, and pays all expenses. The informant said that it was not the first assault upon him, and he wished for his own protection that defendant should be bound over to keep the peace. William Winkler complainant, said that he was learning the carpentering trade,was away all day, and got 10s a week, which ho gave to‘his mother, Mrs Bell. On Monday, 19th October last, defendant wished him to change some good clothes lie was wearing and put on an old suit. Refused to do so, as his mother had told him to wear those he had on. _ Orfendant struck him on the face with his list, and caught him by the throat, severely lacerating the flesh with Ins linger nails, then knocked his head against the wall of the passage. Defendant was using very bad language. A boarder, Mr Potts, came in and caught defendant, and told him not to make a fool of himself. Complamaht had been assaulted several times before; had never “cheeked” defendant or given him provocation. , , Evidnece in support of the charge was given by a housemaid in the employ of Mrs Bell, and Mr Potts, a boarder. Mr Parks, complainant’s employer, said that Winkler was one of the best boys he had ever employed. Defendant said that the informant was a very disobedient boy, and would never do what was wanted. Told the boy to go and change his clothes and hercfused. Caught him and tried to take- him bad. |.o his room, and they both fell. ih ® boy had never got on well with him, am S threatened to kick him »»t •» »oon Worship eaid th»t the Court agreed that defendant was the person to blame in the matter. The boy was eudentl} well behaved, and on the other f end ant had he' had Til-t reated the boy by catching' him hv the throat and knocking hnn clown . ‘ -eiliiprlv improper conduct. The Uni SS ,»t°.!veth,„k the e»e .V,S i was not sent to gaol. c<u.i o circumstances into consideration, the Comt would impose a line of 20s and costs o seven days’ imprisonment, and detendant t„ he bound over in his own security of £25 to keep the peace for six months. theft. Ben Seahourn was brought up on remand [or stealing money from Mrs Bultenvorth. {sergeant (Jreen said that the boy s father had expressed his willingness to pay the amount, and would take the boy home again. Mr Merry had offered to take him to thCI Hook at iOs a week. Probation Oflicer Weathered said it would he the best course to take to send him home. . Accused was admitted to probation tor six months, on condition that he went home iind that the stolen money was returned. Arthur Adams was charged with stealing (1) an overcoat, value £3 15s ; (2) a pair of gloves, value ss; (3) two hats i (4) a pair of boots. Samuel Maher, alias Jo-

seph King, was charged with stealing a pair of boots. Mr Raymond appeared for the accused, and said that as the arrests had only been made onj Saturday he had had no time to prepare the defence, and could not go on with the case. Two of the charges had only been laid that morning. He asked for a remand till Friday.

Sergeant Green said the police were prepared to gq on with the cases at rThe Bench decided to adjourn till Friday, bail being allowed in two sureties of £25 each.