Magisterial.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 575, 24 March 1870, Page 2

Magisterial.

CHRISTCHDROH. This Day. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., E.M., and R. Westenra, Esq.) Drunkenness. — John Curran was brought up in custody, charged with having been drunk and indecently exposing himself in a public thoroughfare yesterday, and was fined 20s.— John Gammall and Henry Ballagh were cbarged with having been drunk and I disorderly at the Selwyn station. The offence was admitted, and a fine of 10s each imposed, the Bench remarking tbat, although their first appearance before tbe court, they must be strongly dealt with, as it was of paramount importance to prevent such conduct at outlying railway stations. Cattle Tbebpass.— The following informations, laid under the Cattle Trespass Ordinance, were disposed of : — William Keisb, one cow at large in Laiimer square, fined ss; Alexander Dallas, one horse at, large in Armagh street, fined ss ; T. G. Grierson, one horse tethered in Oxford terrace, fined 10s; Thomas Price, two cows tethered in Cambridge terrace, fined 20s ; George Turner, one horse at large in Latimer square, fined ss; George Simpson, two horses at large in Cranmer square, also three horses at large in the same locality on the day after, fined lOs in the flrst case, and 15s in the second. Neglect to Eradicate Thistles. — J. C. Wilson, C.8., was cbarged on the information of Mr Harrop, Surveyor to the Spreydon Road Board, with having failed to eradicate certain thistles growing on his estate at Cashmere, after a notice had been served upon him to do so. The information was based upon the alleged neglect of defendant to take adequate measures for destroying tbe thistles respecting which he was summoned before the Court on the 24th of last month. The Surveyor said, during the past week he walked over the estate, and for a distance of two miles he found that nothing had been done to destroy the thistles previously complained of. In defence, it was pleaded tbat men had been employed ten days during the preseut month in striving to carry out the orders of the Court in the previous case ; also, that ten donkeys were kept for the sole purpose pf eating off the top-* of tbe thistles, it was urged as impossible, however, to effectually remove them until the whole of the Cashmere estate was ploughed up, and laid down in English grass. Thistle seed came in perfect clouds from the Peninsula, and they germinated faster than it was possible to eradicate them. The defendant also' complained that he was made the particular objeetof the complainant's oppression ; other landowners, who had thistles upon their land in the same district, not being interfered with. He also protested that the present Thistle Ordinance was quite inapplicable to the state of matters in the province, lt was originally inteuded, as set forth in the preamble, to " prevent tbe introduction of thistles into the province." The Government allowed thistles to grow on the hills, and tbe seed was carried in clouds on to private lands, rendering it beyond the scope of possibility to eradicate them, except by ploughing up every inch of toil. This ou bis estate was impossible within a very lengthened period, and he must therefore be constantly brought before the Court. He had, in fact, muoh better be fined every week than attempt ordinary means of eradication, which must prove very expensive and entirely fiuitless. In reply to the Bench, the informant (Mr Harrop) said he was. not prepared to deny that defendant bad used the measures stated to eradicate the thistles on his land, but those which informant had complained against in the previous, were now in full bloom, and had never beeu touched. Hia Worship said it was not for the Bench to decide whether or not defendant could eradicate the thistles on his land, but merely to carry out tbe law as it stood. They knew that many hardships were suffered from the unchecked growth of thistles on Government lands, several having come under their special notice, but at the same time they must enforce the lav. With respect to the oppression camplained of by defendant, bis Worship muat say that the informant was merely doing his duty. The I Bench bad made it their purple to inquire

into the matter, and were satisfied that the informant had not specially signalled out any one particular person to prosecute under the Thistle Ordinance. The Bench must therefore take it that judgment having been suspended on a previous conviction against defendant, and no adequate steps having been taken to eradicate the thistles then complained of by the Inspector, the fine stipulated by the Ordinance— -5s per day, since the conviction on the 23th of February, amounting in the gross to j£7 10a — must be imposed. The defendant begged, with all respect to the Bench, to protest against the iniquity of an Act being enforced which was clearly intended for other circumstances. If such oppression were continued against him, it would drive him out of the country, for he could no longer feel himself a free man when subjected to such unjust treatment. He must beg the Court to distrain upon his property for the amount of the fine, as a record of his protest against the Act. His Worship replied that if notice of refusal to pay the fine was given to the Court in a formal manner, a distress warrant would of course be issued. Abusive Language.-— Bridget Ferrock was summoned for having used abusive language towards Sarah Evans on the 17th inst. The case appeared to have arisen out of a dispute respecting some money, and had partaken more of slander than abuse. Recriminatory language had certainly passed between the two, but .the evidence was not decisive as to wbich was the aggressor, and the case was accordingly dismissed, his Worship remarking tbat if complainant took objection to the charge about the money, she must bring an action for slander.— Rosanna Hill was charged with having violently abused Benjamin Boswell on the 10th of March, and in a cross-action Boswell was charged by Rosanna Hill with having, on the Bth of March, indecently exposed his person in a public thoroughfare. The first case was clearly made out, accused, in the bearing of two witnesses, having used most opprobious epithets to complainant, and threatened to burn down his stacks without having received the slightest provocation. The Bench deferred fixing the amount of tbe fine until the termination of the second case. In this the evidence showed that recrimination had tiken place between the complainant and defendant, but nothing was adduced to prove the charge against the latter. His Worship said the Bench had listened to a great deal of filth in order to arrive at a proper decision of the cases, and it appeared to be a great misfortune for any man to come in contact with Mrs Hill. There could, be no doubt that words bad been bandied between her and Boswell on the occasion for wbich the second information was laid, and also that Mro Hill's language was particularly disgraceful. From the evidence in the first case also, and from what was unfortunately already known to the Benob, Mn Hill was unquestionably given to drink, and had been the principal offender iv both cases; She would therefore be fined 40s in the first case, and the second would be dismissed, with a strong ctution to Boswell to keep clear from her in future. Mrs Hill refused to pay tbe fine, and was thereupon ordered to be imprisoned for one month. Dangerous Practice by Boys. — Henry Kitchen, a boy about six years of age, was charged with having fired shavings in dangerous vicinity to the store of William Hinton, on the Whately Road. Ihe case was proved, and there appeared to be some considerable danger from such proceedings by boys in tbe neighbourhood. Two other boys were instanced as being connected with the boy Kitchen in the case now complained of, and after a severe reprimand the oharge waa dismissed, on consideration of their respective parents paying the costs of the information.