MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 2531, 4 May 1876, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

I ' »/ CHRfSTCHUROH.

This Day. (Beforo G. L, Mulish, Esq., R.M., and W. H Pilliet, Esq ) The Court oponod at 11.15 a.m. Drunk and Disorderly.— An inebriate who appeared for tho fln»b time was flned ss. BitßAOre of the Pbaoh —Alfred Hubert Humphries, alias Edward Prioo and John D ivie, woro brought up ohargod with having committed a broach of tho peaoo within view of a nonstable. From tho evidence it appeared that tho prisoners, one of whom snowed strong marks of violence on his faoo, had a stand up flight near the Warwick Hotel, shortly aftor ll o'olook lasfc night, and the only ox< uso they < ffrired to the Bonoh was drunkenness. A fine of lOs each was imposed. Housbb and Cattib at Labor.— Tho following persons wore finod 5s for permitting horses and cattle to wander at large j — A. Oulliford, Thos. Pros ton, Thos. Hcket, and Wm. Brook, MiaoßttANßOtrs Offbnobs. — Nioholas Wolsh was oharged with having driven a pair of horses and trap at a furious paoe on the Papanui roud. Aocused said one of the horses was a young one, and broke at a heap of stones, but ho pulled thorn up as soon us he oould. The oonstablo said ne did not see aeqused make any off >rfc fco pull up fcho horses A fine of lOs was imposed.— Lswis Smifch, for (toting as a driver of a 'bus without being duly lioonsod, was fined lOs.— Alfred Smith, for plying for hire with hia 'bus off its lioonsed route, was flnod lGs,— Robert Walloon, for noting as a driver of a 'bus at Sumner without being duly licensed, was flned lOs— Walter Bakor, for huving an unregistered dog abovo the age of throo months in his following, was flned 20s.— Wm. Mathews and Wm, CJlan wero flnod 20s oaoh for similar offences . — John Gordon, for threo dogs, was fined £3. — Thos Aldrkigo, for ono dog, was fluod 20*.— Gavan Diok, for having ridden on his dray without having proper veinß atfcaohed to his hor-es, was flnod 10s. Ofphnding PußwroANa— Joseph Oram Sheppard, licensee of th« Wbito Hart Hotel, W. F. Warner, lioonsee of Warner's Hotol j Thomas Buarfc, licensee of tho Britannia Hotel} and Jesse H. Hall, licensee of the Eastern Hofcol, admitted having kept their respective houses opon and sold liquor during prohibited hours, and were flnod M eaoh, Fokiotts Dbivino.— The adjournod case against John Harper and Tnomus . Shailer, lioonsod 'Ims drivers, for furious driving on tho Ferry road, was again oalled on. Mr Thomas appeared for fcbo informant, Mr, Roper, and Mr Bamford for the defenoe. Mrs? Roper called, corroborated the evidence! givon by hor husband last weok to the effect' that Harper, who was leading, was driving at a fast rate j thafc Shailer, who was a little behind, was galloping hie horses to overtake Harpor. Thab Mr Roper had to draw on to grass at the side of tho road to prevent, 'Shailer running into him, and that tho 'bus ovon then struck Mr Roper's trap pretty hard aa it passed. Francis Trow gavo similar evidonoe. The caso against Harper was dismissed. Harpor was thon called for tho defence, snd said thoro was no attempt what-ever-at raoing on tho part of Shailer or himself. In oross-oxumination Harper said ifc was about six o'olook and very dark j that Shailer had no lights burning} that he (Harpor) was going aboub seven or oiijhfc miles an hour whon Shailor passod him, and that he did not look to soo whether Shatter's horses wore galloping. Aroused emphatically denied fchafc his horses wero galloping, or- that ho endoavourod t> raco with Harpor. Hia Worship said three witnesses had distinctly sworn that aooused's horsos woro galloping, and ho would bo flnod 10s Abusive Language.- Isabella Ishorwood, a girl about twolvo years of ago, was oharged with having usod abusive language towards Mary Jeffs. From complainant's ovidonoo ifc appeared that aooused took a pail of wator from a woll on Mr Jeffs' proporfcy, fchough she had boon fcold, beoauso of impertinent conduct, not to do so, and on being spoken to she gavo complainant a lot of inpudenoe. Afc this complainant elappod her face, when aooused oalled hor vory bad names, Aaoused denied it, saying it wos complainant who had oalled her names. Mr Jeff* corroborated his wife's evidenoe about the wator, but ho said ho did not hear tho girl oall his wife names. Ho said aooused's family wore a groat nuisanoo to tho neighbourhood, and that if thoir oonduot was not, put a si op to ho would sell off his farm and clear oufc. Acoused, in defence, Baid Mrs Smart gave hor permission to got the wator. His Worship reprimanded aaoused and flismissed tho oaso, He also told Mrs Jeffs that sho did vory wrong in striking tho girl. Assaults .—Geo. Groen was summoned for having violent assaulted John Harper. Complainant said he was at the Cavensham Hotol with a man named Marshall, whon aooused charged tho latter with having made somo ronmrka about hia wife, and sferuok him, Complainant said Marshall had not mado any romarks, about accusod's wifo, whoroupon aooused struok him also. Acoused said ho desired tho oaso to be adjourned. Ho only rooeivod fcho summons at 4 o'clock yostorday afternoon, and had not had time to call witnesses by whom ho oould provo that complainant, to whom ho had novor spoken, knocked bim down, also that Marshall had insulted his wifo. His Worship adjourned the oa?o till Thursday noxt.—Peter Potorson was ohargod with having assaulted Christina Christie. Mr Slator appeared for tho complainant, and Mr Joynt for tho defence From

the evidence it appeared that the parties tc the action came from tbe same part of Denmark, and came out in tbe same ship together, also that they bad been living as neighbour* .together sinoo. Acoording to complainant she went to see aooused'* wife about something she had been spying about her, when Mrs Petersen struck complainant, and aooused, who followed hara short timo after sho left tb« home, xtruok her in the face. In roply tc Mr Joynt, complainant said when she met accused she told him she bad been to see his wifo about something she had been saying, and tliat she had pulled Mrs Petersen's hair. It waa after this that aooused struok her. She did not tell aooused she had quarrelled with his wifo, but that she would like to quarrel with hor. Complainant also admitted that she went to Petersen's for the purpose of huving a row with Mrs Petersen, and that the two families had been bad friends for a long time Mary Han berg corroborated complainant's evidence about accused assaulting her. George Cleaver called Baid he saw acoused strike at complainant, but could not say whether he touohed her or not. Acoused on -being sworn said complainant came to him and told him she had struck his wife and pulled her hair ,- also that when her husband caught accused he would kill him. He followed her, and said, " If you have struck ray wife I will slap you," and then struok her with his op n hand on the cheek, but tne blow would not have hurt a four year-old child. He was sorry afterwards for doing it, but complainant had made him very bad tempered by saying she had struck his wife. A witness called for the di fence said she was present when Mrs Christie went to Petersen's, and that after the former had oharged Mrs Petersen with having said some* thing bad about her, she struck her, pulled her hair, and said if she met Mr Petersen she would slap his face ; also that oomplainant's husband would kill him. Mrs Christie struok Mra Petersen first. Mr Joynt proceeded to oall Mrs Petersen, but his Worship said h* did not think it necessary to hear further ovidonoo. It was evident there had been a row, and that aocused had received great provocation, but still he was not justified in striking a woman, and a small fine must be imposed to mark tho opinion of tho Benoh. Aooused would therefore be fined lOs, each party to pay their own oosts. Samuel Dick was charged with having assaulted Riohard Bennett. Mr Slater appeared for the oomplainant, who said that he seized a cow belonging to accused for trespassing on land rentod by him, and was driving it to the pound whon ooouscd came up, knocked him down, and kicked him, aooused's wife also pulled his hair. Complain ant's son and Franeis'Sheppard gave corroborative evidence. Mrs Dick, who was called for tho defence, said that oompUinant'e ohildren drove ' er husband's cow into oomplainant's paddock, and afterwards potnmehoed to drive it to tho pound. Her husband came np and asked complainant if ho allowed bis children to do this, and he replied in the affiruoai tive. Hor husband then said ho deserved a thrashing for it, when complainant dared bim to givo him one. At this her husband seized oonrjplainunt by the coat, and the two fell, rolling over and over together. Her husband did not strike complainant, nor kick him, but she saw oomplainant's nose bleed. Another witness gave corroborative evidence, positively asserting that thero were no blows on either side. His Worship said he did not think the assault could havo been a serious one, but there oould bo no doubt that acoused was the aggressor, and a fine of 40* would be imposed. Aooused would also have to pay Court costs and witnoss' expenses. k" BasAoS'oß' MabtbbT Aim Appbbntiobs Act. — Henry Toomer, sen , Henry Toomer, jun., and Ephraim Toomer, of the firm of Toomer and Son, bootmakers, wow summoned for having negleoted to properly instruot John } Thomas Virtue acoording to artioles of indenture, Mr Joynt— l represent Virtue, yon .• Worship. (Laughter) His Worship — I think you generally represent vice, Mr Joynt (Laughter ) Mr Joyot— That is very unkind of your Worship. (Renewed laughter J \JMr Garriok appeared for the 'defence? Mr Joynt produced the indentures, whioh were executed on January 1, 1874, and specified that complainant was to be instructed in the clioking and riveting branohes of tho boot-trado— two yoars at eaoh. From the evidenoe of oomplainant and his mothor, it appeared, that up to tho present time he had been kept entirely at olioking, and when application wns made for complainant to bo taught riveting, tho aooused deolined to grant it. Henry Toomor, junior, asserting that the firm neither could nor would put complainant to riveting yet, nnd that Dr Foster had said the indentures wero no good. Mr Joynt said that he had also wri' ten to the firm on complainant's behalf, but oould obtaia no satisfaction. Mr Girriok aaid the whole matter arose from a misunderstand ing, and his clients were porfeotly willing to instruot complainant in tho riveting branch of the businoss. His Worship : Is it any use under theae oiroumstances to go on with tho case. Mr Garrick to Mr Joynt : Do you press for a fino. Mr Joynt : No. I do not press for a fine, but wish for an ordor compelling tho aocused to carry out the terms of tho indentures. Accused now said thoy vroro porfeotly willing to instruct complainant in riveting, but ho would point out that this was the filth month in tbe year, and he would like to know why the aooused did not do this sooner. It was deoided to go on with tho disc Henry Toomer, senr., called, said tho intentions of tho firm were perfeotly honourable, but they knew that it wae perfectly impossible to make a boy perfect in tbe two branohes of olioking and riveting in two years, and it was a mistake framing the indentures so as to provido fur thi«. The firm had offered to make an inorease of 6s per weok in complainant's salary, and perfect him in the olioking j and also when tbe time of his apprenticeship had expired, to give him employment at 60s por week. The firm cmeider* d it would be best to mako him perfeot in olioking, as a man could always make good mo ey on tbat work, still thoy would put bim to riveting if ho was determined to have it. At present the boy was far from being porfect in clioking, and if he went to riveting, tho result would be that when his apprenticeship expired he would have nothing iv his hands. Mr Joynt : Why did you say that you could not and would not instruot complainant in riveting. Witness: It was my son who said that. He wanted to reason with Mrs Virtue for her eon's benefit. Mr Joynt: Ohj no doubt. In further reply to Mr Joynt tho witness admitted that complainant was m6re useful to the firm now in olioking than he would be in riveting. H. Toomor, jun,, gave similar evidenoe. Mr Garrick submitted that the Benoh should imposo tho lowest penalty. Mr Joynt said ho did not want a penalty, but an order for the fulfillment of the indentures. Mr Garriok aaid tho Bonoh could not make suoh an order. The aooused were brought there under olause 15 of the Aot, whioh only provided for a, fino,

> He also repeated tbat his clients vera perfectly willing to instruct complainant in rivet- , ing if he still desired it, 1 After a short argul ment between the learned counsel, the B*neh 1 coincided with Mr Garrick's view of the matter respecting an order for fulfillment of tha mii dentures, and imposed a fine of lOs. * "" k_