Magesterial.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 698, 18 August 1870, Page 3

Magesterial.

... , . ■» — — CHRISTCHURCH. This Dat. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., 8.M., and E. Watson, Esq. oit thb Bah/wat vranovT x Ticket. — John Joseph O'Reilly, in custody, was- brought up for this oflspce, and. lor refusing to pay bis iare from the Racecourse to the Selwyn. Constable Firman prored ' ij prisoner being given ' into bis. custody by the gaurd of the train, who himself proved the particulars of the offence. In defence, prii soner said he bad been some. time in the bcspital, and was endeavouring to get up to Mr Hixon'B station', where he had, been living before. He thought the air in, that locality would do him more good. Inspector Fender •aid prisoner bad been under treatment in the Lunatic Asylum, but: was sent from there to tfe&hospital on account of his, health. From the latter place he went away without leave, and last night be was taken so ill in the lockup,'that medical assistance had to be called in. Dr, Coward had examined: him, and did not ccnaider him fit to be set at liberty. His Worship, accordingly, remanded prisoner to the hospital for further examination by two m medical gentlemen. ;At a sqbseqafent period of the day, prisoner was examined by Drs Ned wilf and Patrick, who stated that he was Buffering from a diseaie which affected his Brain in such a manner as to render him I {raft-to, be at liberty. He was therefore commltted to. the Lunatic Asylum. f PHUNKENNEBB.— Thomas Douglas was proved, on the evidence of Constable Kennedy, to have been drunk and very disorderly in front of the Theatre last night, and, having nothing to say in defence, was 'fined 10s. Vaqbanct. — Jane Crawford and Annie Driscoll were brought vp in the custody of Constable Eares, charged with being, dis- - orderly and using improper . language in t Colombo street last night. Both were under the influence of liquor, and were in a cab with . fro men. A fine of 40s. each, or, in default,

one week's imprisonment at hard labour, was! imposed. DsiviNa dubing Prohibited Hours.— John Jebson, for driving pigs through the* city daring prohibited hours, was fiaed 10s. Obstructing a Footpath.— Hyman Marks, for neglecting to keep a light burning on some gravel and rubbish lying on the footpath in front of his residence, Manchester j street, was fined Ids. Cattle Trespass. — Charles Martin was summoned for permitting one horse to be at large on the South town belt; but it appearing that the animal bad broken out of a stable, and that accused was after it at the time the charge was dismissed.— 'John McCallum, for one horse at large in Cathedral square, was fined 5s, — John. Page was summoned for one horse at large in Lichfleld street; but he averred that it had just escaped from his paddock, and having had to come down from Woodend to answer the summons, the case was dismissed. Breach op the. City Bt-Laws.— John I Me Vicar was proved by Constable Thoreau, to have absented himself from his licensed cab whilst plyiDg for hire on the stand at the City Hotel. In defence, accused pleaded that he was not absent more than three minutes, and was receiving a fare from a person; but the constable said accused, was away quite ten minutes, and when he returned, came out of the City Hotel. His Worship remarked that he had always said the Hackney Carriage By-laws would be strictly enforced, for the cabmen would almost live in public houses if they were allowed to frequent them with impunity. Accused would therefore be fined 10s, . Obstbuoting a Thoroughfare. — John Merriman, for haying left a cart standing in Lichfleld street for upwards of one hour, was fined ss. , '.'•'. Unclean Slaughter Houses. —B. M. Cresswell was summoned for having neglected to comply, in reasonable Jitne, with instructions to clean his slaughter-house on the Harewood road. Constable Welch, gazetted Inspector of Slaughter-houses, and Inspector Fender respectively gave evidence in support of the information, the latter stating that the smell from accused's yard and an adjoining one, belonging to Win. McKeever, was offensive fully a mile distant, and there had been numerous complaints against them. Accused's yard was not quite so bad as Mr MpKeever'e, hut there was a general neglect throughout the district in respect to keeping slaughter-houses in reasonable order. Accused pleaded that an attempt had been made to clean the yards, but the rain had prevented anything . being done beyond collecting the offal in heaps. His Worship said these slaughter-houses mutt be kept exceptionally clean. Great care had been excercised in granting licenses, hut it was now becoming a question whether they should be continued at all in face of the rapidly increasing population. Personally, he was of opinion that the time bad come when they should be entirely discontinued, and public abattoirs established instead.— Wm. Bi'Keever was charged with a sim lar offence. Constable Welch said that a very large number of sheep were killed at these yards everyday, and not the slightest attempt was made to keep them clean. When witness went there, be could scarcely get his horse up to the yard. The smell was very bad indeed, and though notice was given to accused on the Bth inst., ' he had ..not made any efforts to clean the yard up to the 13th. Inspector Pender gave similar evidence. In defence, accused aatd that up to the 16th inst. it was impossible, by reason of the weather, to do anything to clean the yard, and after that date he had put on twenty-five men to cl'ar up the refuse. Inspector Pender reminded the Bench that accused had no right to let his. yard get into such a very bad state. The Bench held the same opinion, and after censoring accused, fined him £4.— Joseph Culliford was similarly charged for a slaughter-house on the Sandhills. Constable Welch proved the particulars of the case, and to having given notice to accused, who, up to the 13th, had not complied with it. One of accused's men told witness. they had given over killing there ; .but the place was left in a most objectionable manner , the smell from liquid refuse being even worse than the smell fromMrMcEeever's yards.' Inspector Pender said he bad visited the yards that morning, and found them stilt unclean. Accused said he had moved his yards from the locality because he could not get sufficient drainage, and that the little refuse now remaining had been left at the request of the landlord, who wanted it for manuring his land. His Worship said, in that case the, landlord must repay accused, and imposed a fine of £5. — H. B. Lane was also charged with the offence for a slaughterhouse on the Lincoln Road. Constable Welch submitted evidence which showed that he gave accused notice on the 1 Oth, but on the 13th it bad not been complied with. The yards were not in so bad a state as either of the other yards, but there were a number of bones lying about, and on the second visit there was a slight smell from the refuse of a beast just thrown out. Inspector Pender also gave evidence. Accused, in defence, pleaded that he was away from town when the notice was served, and immediately he returned he put men on to clear away the refuse. His Worship said the minimum penalty was 40b., and the Bench must impose this, for it was absolutely necessary that strict compliances with notices to keep yards clean should be enforced. This being the last of the cases, he would like again to repeat his remarks about public abbatoirs. Complaints ' were becoming un- ] numerous, and there wa* no doubt ; that what butchers, by constant familiarity with the refuse of cattle, did not think offensive in smell, was decidedly so to others. Until Borne better measures were adopted, therefore, the penalty for unclean yards would be strictly enforced, the public health being of the first importance. Inspector Pender said he knew it to be the desire of many of the butchers that some public place

for slaughtering should be established. Hi* Worship said he understood such to be the case, and he should take the earliest opportunity of impressing the importance of the matter upon the Government. Assault.— James Burberry and Charles Burberry, father and son, were charged, on the adjourned information of Thomas Moss with having violently assaulted him on the 15th July lait. Complainant said he was employed to superintend the stacking of coal» at the Railway Station. On the day named, he had occasion to find fault with the elder accused, who, declining to put coals where desired, witness went for Mr Hesketh, who reprimanded him for what he had done. Accused then swore, and Baying he could do without such work, got paid off, and left the situation. He subsequently wanted complainant to fight about the matter, but he refused. When complainant was going home in the evening, the two accused came to him in Russell's paddock, the elder one saying to his son, " Look sharp, or we shall lose him." They both took off their coats, and the father, James Burberry, wanted him to fight, but he declined to do so. Accused then said to his son, " Give it to him," and whilst complainant was looking round to see if any one was coming, they both rushed at him, knocked him down, and ill-used him. The father said to his son, " Choke 'un, choke 'un," and complainant cried out "murder." Some men came up and separated them, but the elder accused coming up to complainant with the evident intention of striking him again, complainant knocked him down three times. The bystanders kept the son back Baying, " one's enough at once." After being knocked down the third time, the accused James did not annoy complainant again, but the son did, and . another bit, of a scuffle took place. , The eider , accused crossexamined complainant at length, with a view to showing that after the disturbance abont the . coals, complainant agreed to fight the matter out; but this complainant denied, only admitting that he said he would not be afraid of accused. He also endeavoured to show that complainant bad a bottle in bis hand in the paddock, and that he (James Burberry) only called his eon to get the bottle away before he fought with complainant. Complainant denied ever attempting to use the bottle, and averred that no reference was made to it before the two accused rushed on him together. Two witnesses for complainant proved to being attracted by cries of "murder" from complainant, and to finding the two accused on the top of complainant, both beating and strangling him. They separated the parties, when complainant and the elder Burberry had a tussle, the latter being knocked down three times. They believed accused's ribs were broken with one of those blowß. During this time they had to keep the son back, or he would have rushed at complainant in company with his father again. He endeavoured to do so. The elder accused had no blood on his head or face when they got then. This was the case for complainant. The accused had no witnesses to call in defence, but the father made a lengthened statement to the effect that he went to the paddock with the intention of fighting fair, when, on being challenged, complainant struck him on the head with a bottle, cutting him severely. After this, they fought up and down, during which complainant kicked him in the side, breaking two of his ribs. He (accused) then called his son to interfere, in order to compel complainant to fight fair. It was at this time that the two witnesses came up and separated them. His Worship said the Bench had never heard a case more clearly stated on both sides, and there could be no doubt at all that it was one in which one man was going quietly home, and the other two were lying in wait for him with the deliberate intention of committing a breach of the peace. It might have been the intention of James Burberry to fight fair, and from the evidence the Bench thought it very possible this was really the case, but it was indisputable that the complainant had no desire to fight, and also that two men had actually set upon him at once. The assault was therefore so serious a one, that if it had not been for the severe punishment the elder accused had received in the disturbance, the Bench would have im prisoned without the option of a fine. It had coate to the knowledge of the Bench that James Burberry had two of bis ribs broken, and bad been confined to the Hospital for a considerable time, but the oharacter of the assault was such that it could not be altogether looked over. The costs of the case would be very heavy, the two witnesses having attended court om three separate days, and therefore the fine would only be 4 Os each; the expenses allowed to the witnesses being £1 Is each.