Magisterial

Star (Christchurch), Issue 638, 9 June 1870, Page 3

Magisterial

CHRISTCHURCH. This Dat.

I (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq!, R.M., and J. ! i Ollivier, Esq.) J/Yjattlb Trespass. — Frederick Biggs, for permitting one horse to wander at large in i Armagh street.was fined ss. A Negligent Builder. — Daniel Reese, builder, for having neglected to keep a light burning in front of a hoarding erected during the progress of building operations at the junction of Colombo and Cashel streets, was fined 10s. Unregistered Doo.— Henry Piper, for having an unregistered dog in his possession, was mulcted in the penalty of 20s. Obscene Language.— Fanny Harding, on the evidence of Constable Willis, was proved to have used obscene and violent language near a iro thei in Peterborough street, and it was also shown that she had been cautioned against a repetition of the offence. She expressed her regret at what she bad done, and hoped the Bench would look over it, when she would promise that it should be the last one. His Worship said such conduct could not be tolerated in public streets, and she would be fined 20s. Had it not been tbat she had not been .before the Court lately, she would have been more severely dealt witb. Assault. — T. I. Joynt was summoned by E. W. Trent for having violently assaulted bim at the Theatre on the night of the 31st ult. Mr Cowlishaw appeared in support of the charge. Complainant said on that occasion, himself and wife were shown into two seats by the ticket-taker, who said they were disengaged ; but Mr Joynt subsequently came and claimed them, on the ground that he had bespoke 'them at four o'clock in the afternoon. Complainant referred him to the ticketkeeper for redress, but Mr Joynt, instead of applying there, pulled the chair from under complainant, throwing him violently forward,

and afterwards committed a further assault by ejecting him from the place where the chair had stood. Mr Joynt also used— threatening language. Complainant then left " the Theatre, but was subsequently shown the box plan by Mr Willis, and it showed that the seats engaged by Mr Joynt were two on each side of the centre. The chairs cocopla'nant ocoupied were the third and -bhrfclj f to the right of the centre. Cross-examined: Mr Joynt did say, when first spoken to about the seats, that he had engaged them at four o'clock. Complainant might have said, in reply to Mr Joynt, that he had possession of ... the chair and would retain it. He did not , • touch or strike Mr Joynt, nor did hei see Mr Joynt's hat fall off. Mrs Trent" was called, and gave evidence precisely identical with complainant's, adding that Mr PappriH, the ticket-taker, when spoken to after the rssault, said lie could swear tbat the seats engaged by Mr Joynt were the two on each side of the centre, and did not include those occupied by Mr Trent. Complainrnt said Mr Papprill had promised to attend to give evidence, but could not be found that morning. Mr Joynt said he was willing to admit that Mr Papprill told com- '", plainant the Beats he occupied were not engaged. The following evidence was then called in defence:— Mr Willis, manager at the Theatre, said at 4 o'clock on the day named, accused engaged four seats to the right of the centre of the dress circle; .none of them were to the left. He could swear it, and that, they were marked on the plan so. As numbered on the sketch plan produced, the numbers were 3, 4, 5, and 6. The two latter were the two occupied, by Mr and Mrs Trent. He showed those numbered to Mr Trent after the alleged assault. He did not give Mr Trent to understand that Mr Joynt's seats were the two on each side of the centre. Mr Trent applied for his money to be returned, and he received it. Mr Papprill acted in the capacity of check taker. He had the right to show people to seats. If there was any mistake it was his, because the plan rs numbered was shown tJ Mr Papprill before the performance. Mr Papprill had shown him the seats to which he conducted Mr Trent. They were the seats numbered 5 and 6. He was certain these were two of th* seats engaged by Mr Joynt. Mr Moffat said , he accompanied Mr Joynt to engage seats at-: the Theatre on the day named, and they after-* wards occupied them. When they went to the theatre Mrs Trent was occupying one I seat, and Mr Trent afterwards came up to occupy another of them. Mr Joynt explained that they were his, bat Mr Trent withstood all parsuasion to vacate them, and Mr Joynt then took tbe chair from uuder him. This was done in'a very quiet manner. No violence whatever was used — ih fact, Mr Joynt kept bis temper remarkably well under the circumstances. Mr Trent did not fall. Mr Parker Weßtenra gave generally corroborative, evidence as to the occurrence between Mr Joynt and Mr Trent in the Theatre. There was no violence whatever, nor did Mr Trent fall. He could not say whether either of the parties referred - ; to the box-keeper during the occurrence; '' Mr Joynt, in defence, stated the circumstances of the case in much the same terms as the witness Moffatt, adding that he would have applied to the box-keeper for redress, but the occasion being a benefit to Miss Mathews, there was such a crush that he could scarcely be got at. After some consideration/ his Worship said there could be no doubt from the evidence that the seats in dispute did belong to Mr Joynt, but Mr Joynt admitted the evidence that would have been given by the tiokettaker, and therefore that Mr Trent having, been shown to them, had somejright to enjoy them. The Bench, under these circumstances, thought tbat Mr Joynt ought' to have appealed to the ticket-taker before taking summary possession of them. To say the very least, it would have been more polite to have done so. But although holding that Mr Joynt was wrong in the course he adopted, the . Bench thought there had been some irritation, whilst the assault was not an aggravated one, and would thus impose the nominal fine of 10s. Mr Joynt asked the Bench to increase the amount to £5, in order that he might appeal. Whatever the fine imposed upon him: was, the annoyance at being subjected to such a charge was all the same, and he would like to take the matter further. His Worship, repeating the reasons already stated for inflicting the fine, said the Benah could not accede to Mr Joynt's request.