MAGISTERIAL.

Timaru Herald, Volume LVIII, Issue 1659, 12 January 1895, Page 4

MAGISTERIAL.

TlMAßU— Friday, January 11th. (Before C. A. Wray, Esq., S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. An offender was fined 10s or 48 hours. WANTED ELSEWHERE. A youngman named George Devereux, arrested at the Cave on Thursday by Detective Livingstone, on a Police Gazette description, was charged with failing to comply with an. order made by the Magistrate's Court at Winton m August 1891, to pay £4 4s costs and 10s per week for the support of an illegitimate child. There was upwards of £90 owing now. Sergeant Major McDonald. asked for a remand to Winton. . Mr Raymond* appeared for defendant and asked for a remand, as he had not had time, to look into the matter. He understood that defendant wished to propose terms, and that the camplainant had since married, which would simplify the making of a settlement. The case was adjourned till Monday next. STRAY STOCK. A resident near Glengummell was fined '3s and costs for allowing three horses to wander on a public road last Sunday. NEW YEAR LARKS. Half a dozen lads named Reillyf2), Latimer,, Peter, McGrath, and Auld, were charged with, malicious injury to property on New Year's, eve, by removing C. H. Clark's gate, and on a second charge, by removing Mrs Ziesler's gate. The boys all pleaded guilty; Sergeant-Major McDonald said that a great many gates were removed on New Years night, and from enquiries made by Constable Crawford it was ascertained that these boys were the perpetrators of some of the mischief. They were not charged with anything worse. The gates were only taken off the hinges, not There bad been a little damage done m other cases, but these boys could not be connected with it. They removed some gates, a more or less distance, m some cases across the road, but there was no destruction, no damage done to the gates. Some of the boys were charged with removing other gates, all of the same kind of larrikinism. It appeared to have been done about two m the morning./ His Worship called forward the parents who were present, and asked them how it was that they allowed their boys to be out at 2 o'clock m the morning. The father of McGrath said his boy is j never out late at night, but on this occasion he went down to see the ships J He never knew the boy to ■do any damage. Auld said his boy is at home at night as a rule. Mrs Latimer said she took her boy and his sisters to see the fireworks, and they lost the boy m the crush ; the boy had never been out late before, and was afraid to come home by himself and waited for companions. His Worship said no doubt this was a special occasion, still it was very improper for boys to be left out so late by themselves ; they were bound to get into mischief./ - . The boys Reilly; Latimer, McGrath and Auld, were then charged with-re-moving the gate of Mr C. Bourne, Waiiti Road. One of the boys said he had nothing to do. with it ; he was there but was lacing his boots at the time ; the others pleaded guilty. ! They were further charged with removing the gate of Mr W. Steward, Church street, but they pleaded 'not '■guilty' to this charge. One of them said they passed the place and saw one half of the gate lying on the path and they only shifted it into the gutter. Mr Steward stated that a little damage was done to the gate. „. , Two other boys named Shewan and Kirby pleaded guilty to charges of removing the gates of Mr Ballantyue and Mr Verdon, High street. The fathers of these boys were called up and Kirby said his boy was not m the habit of being out late at night. His Worship said he understood these boys were not connected with any acts of wanton injury. The Sergt.-Major said he did not think the boys intended to do any damage. He did not think there had been much done altogether, although there had been so much talk about it. Some rotten, much decayed fences had been pulled down. His Worship, addressing the boys, said 'he would like them to understand that this might be a very serious matter, that acts of wanton mischief are punishable by a fine of £10 or three months' imprisonment. Of course a distinction was to be drawn, between such acts and such as were done on New Year's night for a lark. Still it was no lark to people to have their gates and fences pulled about and destroyed. They had [no business to be out by themselves at' that time of night ; the only excuse was that this was a special occasion. Allowing boys too much liberty allowed them to begin acts of larrikinism, which grow into acts of wilful mischief very soon. The Sergt.-Major said he did not think they intended to do any actual mischief. At the same time pulling gates off must do some damage, probably m some cases there was. ; The Sergt.-Major said m one case there were some pegs lost which had been used to keep the gates on the hinges. That was Mr Bourne's case, and Mr Bourne was present. Mr C. Bourne called,said his. gate was pulled off and laid on the path, and two pins were lost. Did not think much of it ; it might be some of his Mends for all he knew. There was no damage done except the pins taken out and lost. Mr Ziesler was also called and said no damage was done to their gate ; it was only taken off and put on the other side of the road. : The Sergt.-Major said Mr Ballantyne was not present, but no damage was done to his gate. His Worship told defendants that if any damage had been done by them he would punish them severely, but so far as he could see m the present cases there did not appear to have been any veiy great harm done beyond annoyance to the owners. It was New Year's night, and that was th<<. explanation given why the boys were out so late. He hoped the parents would take warning by these cases and see that their boys are at home at night, as their being out after dark leads to mischief. Under the circumstances and considering that it was New Year's night, and what the police and the owners of the property say, he thought a severe caution would be sufficient m this case. He warned them that any acts of real larrikinism would be severely punished. He strongly recommended them to have nothing to do with larks of that kind with other people's property. It was a veiy foolish piece of business. The boys were then discharged. ASSAULT. Bartholomew O'Rourke was charged with assaulting Hannah Grace at Pleasant Point on December 28th. Mr Raymond for complainant, and Mr C. Perry for defendant. The parties are neighbours, and the case for complainant was that on the ] date named she had been washing, and placed the clothes to dry on a gorse fence hounding her husband's section. Next to this was a section which had been unoccupied and unfenced for a long time. On that day defendant, who had acquired a lease or some other light of occupation, was on the latter section, fencing it across the ends. Some of Mrs Grace's wash blew over to O'Rourke's side of the fence, and in' the evening she sent a little girl to get them. O'Rourke frightened her home again, and a bigger girl was sent and was, also driven back, whereupon Mrs Grace herself went for the clothes, getting through a gap m the fence for the purpose. She stated that when she got through the fence accused came from the other end of the section to meet her stopping on the way to stamp on and tear up some of the clothes. As she was

stooping to pick up some of the things, accused seized her round the waist, shook her, swung her round, and threw her against the sod bank. Mrs Grace, who had only recently been confined, fainted, and when she came to, accused had gone back to his work again. In consequence of this violence she was laid up m bed till last Saturday. She was not aware that O'Rourke had any right to the land ; it had been common laud for years. . In reply to Mr Perry complainant denied that she took a piece of standard with'her and tried to strike accused with it, or that she said anything about knocking out his brains with it. Shedid not fall, but was thrown down; '; Dr Thomas gave evidence that he was called to see Mrs Grace the next day, and he found marks of violence upon her such as might be caused by such ah assault as she had described. She appeared to have suffered considerable violence; a mere fall would not account for some of the bruises. j Ellen Grace, a daughter aged 12 or 13, corroborated her mother's evidence, and a child named Gibson, aged 7, not sworn, did so m part, while Mrs Grant, a neighbour, who had been called m that evening, showed that Mrs Grace was terribly excited and had a succession of fainting fits. r : Accused denied all the complainant's statements, except that he ordered tlje children off the ground, telling them it was his. Mrs Grace came to him with a piece of fencing standard m her hand and struck at him: twice, he warded off the blows and at the second gave her a push and she fell against the sod bank. He went on with his work and she picked lip some clothes and went home. Hedidnot dance upon or tear any of the clothes. Mrs Grace dropped the iron bar and he had brought it with him. : Mr Raymond m his cross-examination inquired about two previous assault cases m which accused had been concerned. Accused's son, apparently 14 or %5 years, who was working with his father, corroborated his statements m nearly every partiruhir, tf:o principal diiFerence being that the boy said Mi's Grace did not fall into or across the ditch. '. Mrs Ellen Brosnahan, who happened to be looking over her fence and saw the occurrence, also gave a similar account of it. She admitted that she was not on speaking terms with Mrs Grace, though they are siaters-in-law, and also that siie is short-sighted. Another person, a man, was talking to her when the row began, but he did not want to be mixed up m it so he skulked down behind the fence and ran away. ; Mr Raymond called m rebuttal a neighbour, a wagoner, Who was up early on the morning after the assault, and who stated that he saw accused as if m the act of coming off Grace's section at a quarter to 4. (Mr Raymond suggested that accused went on the section for the purpose of getting the piece of fence standard.) His Worship m summing up the evidence said the story told by complainant and her daughter was quite consistent with that of Dr Thomas, while the story of defendant and his son was quite inconsistent with it, and the doctor's evidence was unimpeachable. Mrs. Brosnahan's testimony was affected by her not being on good terms with complainant, and by her being short-sighted. A great deal depended upon the doctor's evidence, and this went to confirm the complainant's story. Hehadno doubt that a brutal assault had been com-{ mitted. The woman was known to have been lately confined; she was thrown against a bank and severely shaken and injured. It seemed to him a most wanton tiling for a man to do. Instead of assisting!)*?!'to get the clothes he assaulted her m the most brutal manner. He saw no mitigating circumstances m the case, no reason for leniency, and would inflict the full penalty allowed—two months' imprisonment with hard labour. The Court rose at 1.50 p.m.

The following list of freezing chambers m London and their capacity has been furnished by the New Zealand Shipping Company :—Victoria Docks, 250,000 carcases mutton ; AVest India Docks (new), ready March, 1895, 100,000; Sinithfield, ready June, 80,000 ; South West India Docks, 14,000; Nelson's, 230,000 ; Blackfrinrs, 55,000 ; , total, 729,000 carcases. There are some small private cool stores m addition.