Magisterial.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 488, 9 December 1869, Page 3

Magisterial.

CHRISTCHURCH. This Day. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Vagranct. — Jane Crawford and Mary Holmes, two unfortunates, and frequent offenders, were brought up under the new Vagrancy Act, charged with having misconducted themselves in a public thoroughfare. A fine of 20s each was imposed. Ohstructing a Footpath. — Wm. Thomas was charged with having obstructed a public footpath on the 10th inst., by leaving his cart and horse standing thereon. It appeared that accused was loading goods from Mr H. J. Hall's store, and had backed his dray on to the right-of-way, but left the horse on the footpath. The case was dismissed with a caution. Without Lights.— John Crawford, Hans Clarke, and Archibald Hammill, cabmen, were summoned on the information of Constable Thoreau, for having plied for hire after dusk on the night of the 29th ult., without having lighted lamps, in accordance with the provisions of the City By-Laws. The accused pleaded that it was not dark, being only just eight o'clock, but the constable stated thnt all the other cabs had lights, and that it was about three-quarters of an hour past sunset ; he admitted, however, that Clarke was in the Act of lighting his lamps, and that it was not quite dark. The accused pleaded this latter in extenuation, and each distinctly stated that he was preparing his lamps when accosted by the constable. His Worship said he would not impose fines in the present instance, but cabmen must remember that the By-laws stipulated that tbe lamps should be lighted at sunset, not at dark. An Incorrigible Offendeb. — Robert Falloon was charged, on the evidence of Constable Thoreau, with having plied for hire in Cashel street, the same not being in his licensed route. The accused is driver of a 'hus running between the Railway Station and the Post-office, and had no right to run elsewhere but between these points. There was also another similar charge laid by a rival 'bus driver, for having carried passengers on the Ferry Road. W. Simmonds proved the latter case. Accused pleaded in defence, that he took no money from the passengers, nor had he ever done so on tbat road, also urging, in excuse of the first offence, that he was not plying for hire in Cashel street, but was merely collecting money. In support of the Ferry Road information, Simmonds called Walter Hartnall, another 'bus driver who supported his evidence, but could not say whether accused took any money from the passengers. In defence, accused called one of the passengers, a lady, who said she offered to pay the money for her ride, but was refused, and, also Mr Pavitt, who said he had more tban once ridden with accused from his office on the Ferry Road into Christchurch, but had never paid or been asked for money. He had tendered it, but it had been refused. The informant Simmonds pointed out to his Worship that the by-law did not say anything about receiving money, but forbade the carrying of passengers on an unlicensed route, or using a licensed vehicle for any other purpose but for passenger traffic on the road for which it is licensed. Accused complained that the case by Simmonds was brought out of spite, and urged that it was hard if he could not carry passengers free whenever he desired; and in reply to Simmonds' contention respecting the by-laws and the use of a licensed carriage, said the one driven in the present instance was that in which he conveyed the Ferry Road mails to and from Christchurch, although he also used it between the Railway and Post-office. His Worship, after carefully examining the by-laws, said accused had clearly no right to use the vehicle on any but its licensed route, and h# must find some other means for carrying the mails. He would be fined lOs in each case. Another, information was laid during the sitting of the Court by Simmonds, charging accused with a second offence on the Ferry Road, and it being admitted, another fine of 10s was imposed. Two Rowdies. — Thomas Gunnell and William Manson were jointly charged, on three separate informations, with having, on Friday evening, the 20th instant, rid len at such a pace over the Heathcote Bridge — a public thoroughfare — as to endanger the lives of passers-by ; with having evaded the payment of tolls on the bridge, and with having afterwards violently assaulted the toll-col-lector, at the Heathcote Arms Hotel. From the evidence of complainant and a witness, it would appear that the accused rode over the bridge in the afternoon towards Sumner without paying the tolls, and returned in the evening at a violent gallop— as fast as the horse could go — thus preventing complainant from applying for the tolls, which tbey again neglected to pay. They rode some distance past the Heathcote Arms, but subsequently returned, and complainant then went to demand the tolls. On doing so, Gunnell struck him with a whip, and subsequently with Irs fist, on the head, cutting his lip right through, and rendering it necessary for him to go to Dr Deamer to get it sewn up. Dr Deamer proved the cut to have been a serious one. In defence, the accused denied any intention to evade the tolls, and averred that when complainant came up to them at the hotel be used very abusive language, and took up a rail to strike them before any assault was committed. Gunnell then hit him on the wrist with his whip, and a struggle took place, but Manson did not take part in it, or assault complainant in any way. The witness who was called by complainant to support hiß statement, was re-examined, and admitted that complainant, on accosting the accused at the hotel, used rather intemperate languagetelling the accused that they were no men to ride over the bridge at such a dangerous pace, and that they were scamps to thus

evade the tolls ; but, in reply to Inspector Pender, added that complainant was generally a quiet inoffensive man, and very civil in the discharge of his duties. Inspector Pender also said that Mr Pavitt was prepared to give similar evidence. His Worship replied that it was not necessary, for he was quite satisfied that the conduct of the accused was a deliberate piece of rowdyism, and that they were men who ought to have known much better. The complainant was an elderly man, clearly possessing a good character, and having a public duty to perform, must be protected. The accused would be fined 20s each for the furious riding, 2Cs each for evading payment of the tolls, and 40s each for the assault ; the Court costs and witnesses' expenses to be divided between them. Cattle Trespass. — The following fines were imposed under the CatUe Trespass Ordinance : — George Whitely, one horse tethered on a public road in the Avon district, ss. Weir Bros., seven head of cattle at large on Colombo Road, in theSpreydon district, lOs. George Osborne was charged on two separate informations with having permitted horses to wander at large in Armagh street, but producing evidence to the effect that the gate of his paddock had been wilfully forced open, both charges were disdismissed. Furious Riding. — Henry Jackran, a youth, was charged with having ridden a horse at a furious pace in Cashel street, after dark, on a Saturday night. Sergt. Pratt proved the case, and Mr T. Anderson gave corroborative evidence. Accused made no tangible defence, and was fined 10s. Illegal Rescue o» Cattle. — Patrick Henley answered to a charge of having unlawfully rescued a number of his cattle when being conveyed to the pound, and, on the same occasion, violently abusing, one of the persons who seized them. The cattle were grazing on the road, in charge of a small boy and a girl, when seized ; and, in justification of the proceeding, it was pleaded by two neighbours that they were a standing nuisance, besides one of the bulls being dangerous to people using tbe road, one having been rushed more than once by it. Accused denied the grazing, stating that the cattle were only being driven up the road to drink; but the complainants positively swore tbat both the boy and girl were sitting on the road whilst the cattle were feeding. Accused also denied the abusive language, and, iv defence of both charges, called a witness, who supported the statement of the cattle being sent out merely for water, but, in crossexamination, partially corroborated the charge of abusive language. A girl— daughter of accused — was also called, but nothing material was elicited from her. Accused, in further defence, pleaded that the case had originated purely out of ill-will; but his Worship remarking that, whatever were the actual merits of the case, the cattle had been legally impounded, and accused had no right to rescue them. He would be fined 20s for tbat offence, and 10s for using abusive language. " Stealing Fruit. — Abraham Waterworth and Thomas Waterworth, two boys, apparently about six and five years of age respectively, were charged with having stolen fruit from the garden of Mr W. Hislop. From the statement of complainant, it appeared that several neighbours had seen the accused in the act of purloining appleß, but none of them bey ing in attendance to give evidence, the ease: was adjourned until Wednesday next, ia order that tbey might be subpoeane-i. Driving on the Wbong Side of the Road. — Walter Taylor was charged on the information of Sergeant Pratt with this offence. It appeared that he had driven between Dr Back's trap and the footpath, on his wrong side, thereby endangering the safety of the latter gentleman. A fine of 10s was imposed. Unregistered Dogs. — James Greer, Matthew Lough, and James Steel, charged with having unregistered dogs in their follow-, ing, were dismissed with a caution, in consequence of the long distance — from the Malvern Hills— which they had bad to come to answer the summons.