MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 593, 4 January 1916, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TO-DAY'S CASES. Mr 11. W. Bishop, S.M., presided over a sitting of the Magistrate's Court this morning. DRUNKENNESS. One male first offender was charged ■ with being found drunk in Cathedral Square. Mr Bishop: Were you drunk? Accused: I was going home in the wet Mr Bishop: Were you drunk? Accused: It's the rain that done it. Mr Bishop: I want to know whether you were drunk. Accused: I did have some drink, right enough. Mr Bishop: That settles it. You look drunk now. ' A Voice: Ho is shaking all over. I Mr Bishop: Remanded till to-morrow ! morning, to get the drink out of you. I For procuring liquor while prohibited, i Matilda Ewing was convicted aud dis- \ charged. Maurice Brown was also charged with procuring liquor while prohibited. Sub-Inspector Hastie said that this was the second breach. The accused was fined 20/- or, in default, 14 days' imprisonment. MAINTENANCE. William Sehultz and Reginald Charles , Sehultz were each ordered to contribute at the rate of 5/- a week towards the support of their brother at the Training Farm. ALLEGED INDECENT ACT. Frank Ernest Coodman was charged with that on December 31, at Sydenham, he committed an indecent act. Mr Cassidy, who appeared for the accused, asked for a remand till Monday next. This was granted, bail being allowed, self in £IOO and one surety of £IOO. CATCHING CHICKENS. Daniel Gunn appeared on a charge of stealing, on January ?>, at Sydenham, three chickens, valued at 1/- each, the property of Leonard Rowse. Mr C. E. Salter appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Leonard Rowse said that he was standing in a yard on the date in question, when he saw accused. Thinking that something was wrong, witness followed the accused. Sub-Inspector Hastie: Why did you follow him? Witness: Because I heard some chicks squeaking in his pocket. I afterwards followed him, and saw him put the chickens in his own fowlhouse. Mr Salter: Did he take the chickens from your* yard? Witness: No; from the neighbour's yard. Mr Salter: Well, how do you know they were your chickens. Witness: Our fowls are all mixed up, but the neighbour did not have any chickens. Constable Hislop said that the accused had told him that he had taken the chickens for fun, and had returned them later. Mr Salter said that the defence was that the accused saw the chickens running about the neighbour's yard, and asked him about them. The neighboiir said he could have them if he could catch them. This the accused did, thinking that the chickens belonged to the neighbour, y* The neighbour said that Rowse's chickens were very often in his kitchen, aud on the day in question he told the accused he could ha*e the chickens if J he could catch them. It was done as a joke The charge svas dismissed.

LYTTELTON CASES. (Before Messrs F. W. Anderson and W. C. Cleary, J.l'.'a.) One first offending inebriate \v:is uonvi,!t<!d and fined 5/-. " DEMANDED. James Kuowles (Mr Donnelly) was charged with having assaulted dames Hallott on December 11. so as to cause him actual bodily harm. On the application of Senior Sergeant Ryan, lie was remanded until January 11. A BAD CHARACTER, Joseph Guerrero pleaded not guilty to being an idle and disorderly person, in that he had no lawful visible means of support, and guilty to having damaged Government property to the value of 3/6. Senior-Sergeaut Ryan stated that accused lauded from the American yacht Carnegie on November 5. For two days lie was employed on the Mararoa, and was discharged, being considered a lazy, useless fellow, who would not work. During the time he had knocked about Lyttelton numerous complaints have been received as to his conduct. Detective Quarterniain stated that the master of the Carnegie told him that ac-

cused's character was very bad. On ono occasion nt Honolulu he represented himself to be a detective, but he was not believed. When being chased, accused fired a revolver at his pursuers. He whs confined in an asylum at Honolulu for some little time, and he was also marked as a very dangerous character. During the time he had been in gaol on remand his conduct had been very bad, and he had to receive solitary confinement in consequence. On the first charge, accused was sentenced to one month's imprisonment, and ordered to be kept under medical surveillance, and on the second he was ordered to pay the damage, in default seven days' imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently.