CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 569, 17 March 1870, Page 2

CHRISTCHURCH.

This Day.

(Before bis Worship the Mayor, Joaiah Birch.

and W. B. Toaswill, Esqra.)

Drunkenness.— Thomas Waterworth, on bail, was charged with having been drunk and disorderly at the Theatre last night. The 6fience~was: pTOTed-byuGonatable-JSareg, and a fine of 108 was imposed .-^-Josiah Long waa brought up in custody- on ■•■ a cbaTge of drunkenness at the Circus, in the early, part of January last. Prisoner, was arrested, at the tjme, but admitted to bail on the same evening, and failed to appear when called upon next morning. A warrant was issued for his arrest, but he had managed to evade it, and waa not heard of again until yesterday, when he voluntarily gave- -himself into custody. Prisoner did not deny the offence, and was fined 2fls.— John Bohen, for haying- been drunk and disorderly at the Railway .station yesterday, was fined 10s, and ordered to pay the expenses of - a cab' called into requisition to convey him to the lock-up. ' :'_ ;

Catctjb Tbbb*ass. — Biobard Sunderland, for having one horse tethered on the Town Belt and one horse subsequently at large on the North Town Belt, was fined 10s. Illegal DitiviNa or Cattle.— Thomas M'Faddon was summoned for having driven a cow through the Btreets of the city during prohibited hours. The offence was admitted, but the nominal penalty of 5s was only imposed, a caution being, however, administered not to. permit the ofience to occur again. Assaults.— Henry Smith; was r charged with haring violently assaulted the Bon .of Edward M'Kenna, at the Heathcote Valley. It appeared that the children, of the two parties - had been " playing at soldiers and Maoris," and accused's boy having been somewhat roughly handled, the accused, under a supposition that it was complain* ant's son Kenneth who had done it, struck him violently eeveral times. Complainant went to remonstrate with accused, when ha said he would repeat the, assault if necessary, and would also assault complainant if he did not mind what he i was doing. He alto used very violent language. The boy. Kenneth was called, and corroborated this, further averring that it was not he, but his younger brother, who struck accused's son. Accused admitted having boxed the boy's ears, 1 bat denied using the language imputed to him, also averring that his children had frequently been assaulted by complainant's boys.- On the occasion referred to, his son complained that Kenneth M'Kenna had struck aim oa the back with a stick, t and- it wbs on this account that accused 'struck complainant's boy. The Bench were of opinion that the matter was entirely the result of a neighbour's quarrel, but that accused had no right to assault a boy in the manner he-had clones as serious results might accrue. If they could not agree, it would be better for them to keep both themselves and children apart. For the present offence 'accused would, be leniently dealt with, but bo most take care not to repeat 'his conduct. He would I merely be: fined Is -and -costs,- — Thomas' Mitchell was summoned for having I assaulted John Nethertoa at Rolleaton on the 7th of March last. Complainant said that, whilst ploughing on his laud, he set fire to a I tussock of grass, not with the intention of doing any harm to anyone, when the accused, with. some others, came over and himself assaulted him, striking him on the head with a paling. By accused: There was s nor'-east | wind blowing, but not strong enough to cause the fire to injure anyone. He set the tussock on. fire because he wanted to plough the spot. He bad no intention, whatever, of injuring accused's corn or property. The wind was blowing towards accused's land. The fire I was' nearly out, when accused came up. | Ac. used put : out the fire, notwithstanding complainant ordering him not to come off the • land. Complainant then: > sent for _ matches, and lit .._. another. .... fire. Ho had no-malice against accused. He did not strike accused with a stick before being assaulted, but took a stick, up to compel accused to go off the land. Complainant did not assault accused first. ' By. the Beach : The fire vras on complainant's own land {the wind was very light, and could not endanger accused's property in the slightest degree. One of the tussocks on fire was about- two yards from the dividing fence, and the other about fire yards. Complainant's daughter, twelve years of age, was called, and in substance corroborated the statements made by her father. The fence round the paddock where the fire was is composed of four jods, and has no gorse growing upon it. In defence, accused called a witness, who said ;that whilst .engaged 'tying- in a > paddock -half a mile from the fire, they were attracted by the smoke, and went to see what if; was. There was a middling -strong wiud blowing, but witness could not say whether, it accused's stubble had got on fire, it would have been difficult to put it out. Witness did not hear accused speak to complainant about putting the fire out before going into the paddock where it was. Complainant would . not let accused put the fire out, and took up a'Stick, with which he knocked away the one accused had. ' Witness did not see complainant strike accused with the stick he bad. He could not; say whether the fire could have got over the fence. He. did not know -that complainant bad any malice against accused, or had threatened him in any way. By c( rapjainant: He saw accused strike complainant with a paling on the face. ; By the Bench : He did not think there- was any danger whatever of the fire spreading. Accused made a long statement in defence, the purport of which was that he believed his property to be in danger by the fire, and that when he remonstrated with complainant, he abused and struck him. Complainant was a continual source of annoyance, and he was in nightly fear of having bis property bnrnt down upon him. The Bench said accused appeared to be a very quarrelsome neighbour, and that.

.both from complainant's evidence and ac--cused's witness, there was clearly so danger to be apprehended from the fire; also, that complainant had not assaulted. him as had beeniried to be made out. Accused would be fined 20s and costs. Complainant made '■ sn application for accused to be bound over to keep the peace; but the Bench considered '■ the flhe ; sufficient to vmeet the present case; —Walter Hartnell and Thomas M*Kay, two '-. licensed- cabmen^ were jointly charged with having violently assaulted William Holmes, -ron^Saturday evening last. Complainant, on entering the witness box, failed to identify ..the accused M'Kay as one of- the - parties as- - e&ulting him, i and a mistake having evidently been made in the identity, M'Kay was dis- - missed from farther responsibility in the case, t Complainant in evidence, said, whilst going iiome on Saturday night, a cab came up, :£rom twhieh' -Hartnall alighted, ; and .after saying " You are the man L want,'? struck : him violently on the face, otherwise. • ill-using him, and ultimately left him on the ground in ,'a: ; Btate- of insensibility. A boy named /-.•Walter Harker was called in support of the information, and said he saw accused get out .of the cab. ;A tussle afterwards took place, in: which complainant,, another man, and a woman were assaulted, but he could not say £ /who struck, the first blow. .The driver of the - -cab was . aiding the accused in the assault. He could swear to HartnaU being the man - who got of the -cab. Thomas Burnett saii, on the night named he heard a woman screaming near Windmill Road, and on going -. ap, found the complainant lying insensible in the road. There waa s cab just being driven away, and witness, on accosting the driver; with a view .to - taking his number. ..was knocked down .with a whip or bludgeon of some kind. He was otherwise ill-used, . and had been three . days. from, his work in consequence. . He could not positively swear to accused being , one of the men as he had. not time to see "either of them distinctly before being maltreated. Another witness gave corroborative v evidence, saying that at first he thought complainant to be dead, and that on the following morning lie found two large . pools of blood on the roadway. Jane Ballinger, ■ who was walking with complainant at the - time of the assault, corroborated his evidence, swearing most positively as to the identity of accused, and said she herself was violently , assaulted. In defence, accused denied being in the vicinity of tho place at the time stated, and averred that: be could prove he was -on the Ferry Road. The boy Harker • ■ vras recalled by the. Bench, and again positively swore to accused being the man who got out of the cab. Inspector Pender informed the Bench that HartnaU had been previously, convicted for several offences, but ■;•• said that he had somewhat improved of late. -"Alter.'- some', consideration,: the presiding magistrate said the .case against accused was. a very serious one indeed. There could be no doubt but that a. very aggravated assault &ad been committed, not on one person only, but on two others. However, it was only for the Bench to deal at present with the one in which Holmes was the complainant; and . it appeared, from what Inspector Pender had told the Bench, that accused bad not previously borne a good character. He had apparently conducted himself better of late, , V'ano the Bench. regretted to see that he had . /broken out again in his bad: conduct. The Bench could not overlook the: serious nature - . . of the present offence, and- accused would be sentenced to two months' imprisonmentat bard ; labour. —RobertFalloon charged W.Simmonds with, having. violently assaulted him on the 7th of March.-- Camplainant averred that on the ■ -vday isaamed be was standing with his 'bus at the WhiteJßart Hotel, when the accused, who had first place, on ; the stand, backed: his vehicle: upon complainant's horses, thereby endangering thepole. .Complainant whipped his horses; to -keep them ; straight, when accused jumped down from his bos, seized . the horssa' heads, and the r whip accidentally < striking him, he got up on to complainant's! box, where, he committed the: assault com- < , plained of, Two passengers by complainant's , coach, Ji.rßaldwia and W., Mereon, , were called, and proved the wilful backing of . accused's . horses, and • also the assault, admitting, however, in cross-examination, that . scoused bad previously desired complainant to . back out of the way,hecauae.tbere was not room for two vehicles. Accused, in defence, pleaded that only one 'bus.was allowed by the autho- . Tities to stand on the spot where the assault was committed, and that he, being first there, , had, a right to it, whilst Fallooh Vbus blocked .ap.. the .door! of his, rendering it unable for passengers td^et in; He remonstrated with complainant upon this point,. but he failing V 4o take hie horeea'awßy when told that the stand was only for one vehicle, accused tried to back complainant's horses away. "Whilst doing so complainant struck him with his - .. whip, and he then committed the assault. He averred 1 that the police had previously cautioned r com] lainant for driving his 'bus on to the .stand. when there was one there-'alfeady, and called Constable Willis, who said that on one occasion he had certainly ordered complainant to draw his vehicle back.' The pre-siding-^magistrate, after consulting -his col- '■■-''• leagues; iaid it waa Tery [evident .that the whole was very evidently an unprovoked piece of . business, and that the, Bench were informed \.V:.J&er^;w'i^B..«ip'.lirnit to the number of vehicles : ■"-': allowed ;to s taud in. the place referred to. The two parties appeared to have frequent differ ,- euces, and although the Bench were ready to /' ,ma^e some *l|oi?a^ce^ipr; trade rivalry, tl^ey .coinld.not do other wise- than impose a fine of -lOa.^ ;;, , . ■•:.; .-..V •,, ::.„[■■:,■:.■ ■..,-. .-; :-.