Masisterial.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 604, 29 April 1870, Page 2

Masisterial.

* CHRISTCHURCH. Thdbsdat, April 28. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) Vagkanct. — Minnie Thompson was charged with improper behaviour in the vicinity of the Theatre last night, and having been previously dismissed with a caution for a precisely similar offence, was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment at hard labour. Petty Theft. — Sarah Buckets, on remand from Wednesday for having stolen a halfsovereign from the house of Catherine Jardon, Gloucester street east, was again brought up. The case was fully proved, prisoner having the coin in her possession when arrested, and her defence only. being to the effect that she had taken it in a joke, she was sentenced to three months' imprisonment at hard labour. City By-Laws. — Patrick M'Elvie was summoned for having driven some pigs through Colombo street during prohibited hours. \vx defence accused pleaded ignorance, and having had to come a long way to answer the summon?, his Worship^ making allowance for the recent promulgation of the by-law, dismissed the case. He stated, however, that all informations laid under it would for the future be enforced, the two already heard having given sufficient publicity to the new restriction.^ Assaults. — Thomas Carter was summoned for having violently assaulted his wife, Jane Carter. "From complainant's evidence it appeared that accused had struck her on the head, and that when he was in drink she dare not etop in the house. There was no other evidence in support of the charge, which accused denied. He averred that be bal never illused his wife, and complained that

was

i she provoked him by abase and neglecting his home comforts. In reply to the Bench Sergt. M'Knight said the police knew nothing of either party, and his Worship being desirous of arriving at something like the truth of the matter, adjourned the case in order that enquiries might be made. — Henry Robinson was charged with having violently assaulted Mary Vavasour with a whip. The occurrence, as proved by the complainant, appeared to have originated from a neighbours' quarrel about cattle. There was no evidence to support complainant's statement, and in defence accused called two witnesses who saw the whole occurrence, but saw no blow struck, or heard accused abuse complainant in any way. The case was dismissed. Wilful Damage. — John Armitage, Samuel Stowell, and John Hooper, were jointly charged with having wilfully damaged a fence on private property in Peterborough street. Hooper did not appear, and Sergeant McKnight said there was reason to believe that he had left the province for the West Coast. Mrs Betta, the complainant, said on Tuesday morning last she found that fourteen palings bad been pulled off her fence im one place, seven in another, and two in another. The damages had coat 10a to repair. A witneß9 proved to having been at Coker's Kail on the Monday night, and to the accused Stowell being also there, but did not remember seeing Armitage. Several of them left the Hall to go home together, and on the way passed through Peterborough Btreet, Stowell being again there, but not Armitage. Whilst in the street, he heard some palings broken, but could not say by whom. In defence the accused, Armitage, called a witness, who said that he saw Armitage at the Hall after the others had left, and that although subsequently coming into the street whilst the damage was being committed, did not go near the spot, but went home as quickly as he could. Stowell, in defence, denied any participation in the offence. His Worship said Armitage was clearly not one of the number who did the damage, and further ran away when he heard, it being done. The charge against him would therefore be dismissed, but Stowell, by his presence, was an aider and abettor, and would be fined 20s and costs. Drunkenness. — Mary Ann Kirkwood, in custody, was charged with being an habitual drunkard. Constable Eares p'oved to having arrested the prisoner at the instance of the landlord of the Caversham Hotel yesterday, and the latter, in evidence, stated that prisoner had come to the hotel in the afternoon, and though repeatedly told to go away, would not do so. There were numerous charges against prisoner, who had but a few days ago come out of gaol. She did not deny the present offence, but pleaded in a very demonstrative manner for another trial promising if such leuiency were extended towards her she would take the pledge and obtain a situation out of town. His Worship said she had so frequently made similar promises that he was afraid of trusting her, but ultimately decided to dismiss the case, informing prisoner, however, that no begging would save her from a long term of imprisonment if again brought up. — James O'Grady and James Hughes were summoned for having been drunk and disorderly at Slee's Hotel, near the Selwyn Railway Station. Constable Eares proved the case, but being the first appearance of both of the accused, and having hai to come along distance to answer the summons, his Worship took a lenient view of the matter, and dismissed the charge with a caution.— William Eares, a constable in the Christchuroh police, was charged on the information of Isaa» Walker with having been drunk and incapable at the Selwyn Railway station on the 16th inst. Mr Joynt appeared for the defence. The complainant stated that he resided on the Springs Road. He was at the Selwyn Railway Station all day on the 16th. He saw the accused knocking about there, and in the evening taken to bed by two men. Witness would call him drunk, as he was rolling about with his hat and jacket off. By Mr Joynt : It was eleven o'clock when witness saw accused in the bedroom. Witness did not actually see him put to bed, but saw two men in the bedroom with him. Witness bad seen accused several times during the evening in the hotel. Witness although being. himself about the hotel all day was quite sober. Accused was not disorderly but incapable. Witness did not lay the present information until the 23rd. In the interim accused bad summoned one of witness' workmen and obtained a conviction against him for drunkenness. Witness- had 'not taken any steps to lay the information against. accused prior to the 23rd, although' he was twice in Christchurch between the 16th and 23rd insts. William Brown said he saw the accused at Selwyn Railway Station on the 16th inst. He appeared as if he had partaken of a glass or two of liquor, but witness could neither call him drunk nor sober. Witness' attention, was first drawn to the state of accused when accused was walking off the platform. A remark was made by some one at the time that accused had been drinking. Witness did not see .accused take any liquor at all. Witness left about ten o'clock. George Mcßean, manager of the Selwyn Railway Refreshment Rooms said he remembered seeing accused at the rooms on the 16th inst. He. did aot see him until after 6 p.m., when he walked past in his usual way. Witness saw him in bed at a quarter to eleven o'clock and spoke to him. Accused answered quite rationally and appeared sober. Witness went into the bedroom because a man had come and asked him to do so. Accused was very sick and appeared ill. Witness had been told he had had the diarrhzea. Witness did not think him drunk. He bad not been' into tlie bar between six o'clock and going to bed. He had one or two glasses during the day, but witness never detected any signs of drunkenness. The informant was drinking freely and asking everybody to drink with him. He went into accused's room to ask accused to bare a drink, but accused would not. Patrick Gilmour proved to seeing ac-

cused several times during the day. He appeared as if he had partaken of a glass or two, but certainly nothing to interfere with him in doing his duty. Witness saw accused in bed about eleven o'clock, and he then appeared sober. James Simpson said he was at the Selwy.u station on the 16th, in company with the informant. He saw accused go into the bar several times in the afternoon ; in fact, witness saw him in the hotel every time he himself went in. Accused was not intoxicated during the day, but in the evening he was decidedly the worse for liquor. About eleven o'clock witness saw the accused, with his hat and coat off, taken past the door to his bedroom by two men. Witness certainly considered accused was not sober. By Mr Joynt : Witness was drinking with informant all day. The latter was somewhat under the influence of liquor in the evening, but witness was sober. Accused was taken out of the gentlemen's waiting room by the two men. He saw accused several times between six and eleven o'clock — generally outside but twice inside the hotel. Witness was in the employ of the informant | as a servant. By the Bench : When taken] out of the waiting room accused walked. Witness could not say whether he was supported by the two men or not. Witness did not see him have any drink during the evenin?. By Mr Joynt : Witness was not ordered off (he platform by accused during the day. i By the Bench : He saw accused have a drink in the bar first thing in the morning, but could not say what it was. James Hughes said on the 16th inst. he was at the Selwyn Station. At a little past sis p.m. he saw accused come staggering down the platform. | He was incipable. Witness asked him to go i and have a drink, but he replied ■'• I think I have had quite plenty." By Mr Joynt : Witness did not see accused drink at all. He had been summoned by accused for having been drunk in a licensed house. By the Bench : He did not see accused before six p.m. on the day named. This concluded the evidence by Mr Joynt on behalf of his client. His Worship said although on the evidence he would have dismissed the charge against a civilian, still he must take the word incapable, when applied to a constable, as meaning unable to discharge any portion of his duties in a proper manner, and as it was clear accused had been somewhat under the influence of liquor he would be fined 20s and costs. He "hoped, however, that the Commissioner of Police would not press the offence further against accused, because it was evident there was an animus against him by many of those frequenting the Selwyn Hotel. civil cases. Christchurch City Council v. J. E Graham, trustee in the estate of H. Moss, £7 10s; W. Wilson v. P. Farnett, £15 8s 6d; S. Dufty v. Nathaniel Simpson, £2; J. W. Oram v. Geo. Morton, £2 9s; judgments for plaintiffs for full amounts and costs. Patrick Cready v. George Maugin, £8 10s, judgment for £4; D. Douglas v.Frank Hudson, £> for illegal detention of a dog, judgment for dog to be given up; Press Co. v. Dalwood, £6 15a 4d, judgment summon?, ordered to be paid at once or defendant to be imprisoned for one month.