CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3358, 13 January 1879, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

This Day. .(Before Dr Back and his Worship tho Mayor.) DRUNKENNESS. — Charles Evans pleaded that more weakness was the cause of his drunkenness. Fined 10s. —A first offender was fined ss, and cosb of oab 2s. — Jane Hooper, alias Kitchio, who was charged with lunacy from drink, had been to tho police dep&fc on the previous day under tho irapreseion that a numbor of mon were chasing her about. Eomandod to Addington for medical treatment. —Another first offonder was fined ss. I/AitCENr. —Mathew Longdon was charged with the larceny from a dwelling of sleevelinks, a silver watch box, a silk handkerchief, and Is 6d in money, representing a value of 20s, the property of Edward Brown. He was also charged with the larceny from a dwelling of a watch, value £5, tho property of William Mason. Accused pleaded guilty. Inspector Hiokson stated that accußod went to tho Terminus Hotel, and asked to bo allowed to assist the boots. Ho then took an opportunity of going to the bedrooms of two of the employes, and stoaling the articles in question. Sentenced to three months' imprisonment on the first charge, and six months' on tho second, with hard labour. Larceny. —George Gilbert Kolloston was charged with tho larceny of a bottlo of brandy, valued at 4s, tho property of George Beatty. John Fitzgerald, barman, said, prisoner was in the bar on Saturday night about 9 o'clock, with some othor men, and had drink. Ho left, returning however in about ten minutes, ■one man boing with him, and two drinks were served. The attention of witness was culled •to another part of tho bar, prisoner being at that'time alone. In a few soconds witness returned to where prisoner was standing, and •misbad a bottlo ot whiskey. Ho carefully watched, missed a bottlo of brandy, and saw ■prisoner stowing away somothing in his coat. The bottle was so placed that any person standing outside the counter might easily reach it. Prisoner was detained and given in charge. Could recognise tho bottlo by tho fact that a part of tho cork had been broken off. (Produced and identified.) Constable Eobt. Allen deposed that prisoner 'Was given in charge by Mr Boatty, from •whom witness recoivod tho bottlo of brandy. 'Prisoner, in reply to the charge, Baid he bought the brandy at tho Q. 0. E. Hotel. On tiie way to the lock-up, he said (in reply to a question from the constable) that he bought tho brandy some days previously at the Prince of Wales' Hotol. Inspector Hiokson reprimanded the constable for having asked prisoner where he got the brandy. In -reply to the Bench, accused reiterated that he took the brandy with him into the Palace .•Hotel. Sentenced to one week's imprisonment with hard labour. Tlltbeating A House. —Charles Parker was charged under the Cruelty to Animals Act with wantonly hurting and harassing a •horse, on Dec. 17, in Tuam street. Oonstablo .Miles was called, but tho offence was ademitted. Inspector Hickson said accused was drunk, and beat a horso very severely. But for the interference of the constable he would have been roughly handled by tho crowd. -Fined 10s. House not under control — James Brown, Shand's Track, was charged with not -having a horse and vehicle under control in St Asaph street, on Deo 12. Fined 10s. Unnecessary Obstruction. — Hans • Savage was cbaaged with causing an unnecessary obstruction on tlio South Belt •on Deo 27, by allowing a horso and cart to wmain therein. Accused objected that November should have appeared on the summons instead of Deo., but consented that the case should be heard. Tho constable on •duty at tho Railway Station deposed that accused had his cab against the pavement, in front of the Station, and refused to leave when requested to do. On the application «£ accused, tlio case was adjourned for a week. Cattle Trespass. —For permitting horses and cattle to wander at largo, the following persons were each fined as stated: —James Giltrow 58, George Smith (2) 10s, John Trudgeon ss, Alfred Wright ss, Win. John White 10s, John Williamson ss,]?indlayßoße 10s. A case against Alfred Coker was adjourned for a week for tho production of further evidonco. Breach of Public House Ordinance. — Matthow Houry Oram was charged with laving committed a breach of tho Public House Ordinance, by keeping tho City Hotel open during prohibited hours, on Dec. 22. Mi Neck appeared for tho accused. Inspectoi 'Hickson said ho could not prococd at present as he had not been able to sccuvo tlio attendance of tho necessary witnesses. Mr Neck ob jected to an adjournment on the ground thai according to his instruitions no witnessei be necessary. Tho Bench said that, althougl this might bo Mr Neck'B opinion, tho cas< would bo adjourned for a week. Illegal ilEsotrE of Oattle. —Ontheinfor nmtion of Edward Evans, John Caholl wa charged with having, on Doc. 24-, on tto Canal Reserve, illegally rescued four head o cattle. Mr Izard appeared for tho accused The evidenco of complainant was to tlie effec that accused and his children had preventei him from taking the cattlo to the pound, am that the accused picked up a stone an threatened him with violence. Mr Izar cross-examined witness as to bis rigt to impound, and as to some rigl of pasturage which accused was suppose to enjoy. Confirmatory evidence wi given, and accused, who was then sworn, d< posed that the Chairman of the Boadßom

(Mr Atwood) gave him authority to pasturi cattle on tho Beaervo, in return for keeping the ground clear from thistles, &c. Th< Bench remarked that the Chairman o: the Boad Board would have to shov his authority. Mr Izard's contentioi was that his client clearly thought he had i right to food his cattlo on the Reserve, anc thoroforo had not boon guilty of illegal rescui as contemplated by the Act. The Bond suggostod that tho case might be helc ovor to allow!Mr Izard to call the Chairman oE tho Boad Board, if ho dosired to do bo. Complainant had authority to impound, and acousod had no right to rescue Case adjourned for a week. — Joseph Cooksloy was charged with having, on Dec. 24, oe tho Canal Rosorve, rescued two head ol cattlo from Edward Evans. In tliis case accused and another were cutting grass, and when witness seized tho cattle the men threatened him with the forks they were using, and one of the men struck his horse over the head. Mr Izard appeared for the defence in this case also, and endeavoured to show that the cattlo had never been actually seized. Accused, on being examined, siid that ho was cutting grass by permission oi ho foreman of the Boad Board, and .that his little boy was in charge of the cattle, and was actually driving them along at the time complainant came up. One of the witnesses for the defence admitted that they commenced to drive the cows when they saw Evans coming. Tho Bench fined accused £5, having taken into consideration the fact that accused struck the horse ridden by Evans. — John Hoder was charged with having, on Dec. 20, on tho Ferry road, rescued three head of cattle from Edward Evans, and threatened witness with a whip, sent a man on ahead, and turned the cows into a paddock. In defence accused called a witness to show that the cattle had not been out of his yard more than five ininuteß, after milking, and that his litttle girl was in charge of them, with the intention oE putting them into tho paddock. The witness, however, said that the girl was on the Ferry road by the drain, and that the cows were round the corner of Hargood's road. The Bench having further questioned complainant as to the resistance offered, defendant made a statement on oath, corresponding with the evidence of his witness, and denying that he used any threat. The case was dismissed on payment of costs. — Bichard Offwood was charged with having on Dec. 19, on the Ferry road, rescued a cow from Edward Evans. Complainant deposed that for a considerable time ho saw tho cow grazing on the Ferry road. There was a boy lying down more than half a chain away. For the defence evidence was adduced to show that the cow was as usual being taken to be milked, the lad being in close attendance, when the attempt was made to take it to the pound. Case dismissed with a caution, accused to pay costs. Abusive Language.- -William Bladder was charged with having on Jan. 1 used abusive and threating language to John Watt, aud also with having assaulted him. Accused first threatened the complainant, and then struck him a blow on the face. The offences were admitted, and a fine of 10s was imposed in each case. A case between John Doig and Sarah Bradley Doig was held over to be dealt with by tho Resident Magistrate. BnßAcn of Domain By-laws. — John Hill was charged with having on Dec. 17 allowed a clog to wander at large in tho North Park. Fined 10s and costs. Protection Order.— Thomas King was charged with having for some time past been guilty of habitual drunkenness, and with having failed to provide his wife and five children with adequate means of support. The complainant, Sarah Jane King, prayed that an order might be made for the protection of her property and earnings, and giving her the custody of tho children, tho eldest being seven years and the youngest five weeks old. Accused made no defence. Complainant asked that the amount of contribution should be fixed at 25s per week. Her husband was a clerk. Order mado for the paymont of 20s per week. (Bof ore Dr Back and John Anderson, Esq.) Protection op Earnings.— Jane Wilson, Waltham, applied for an ordor for the protection of her property and earnings, upon tho ground that her husband, James Wilson, had for some time past been guilty of habitual drunkenness, and also of gross cruelty. Mr Izard appeared for the complainant, and Mr M'Connell for the defendant. On the application of Mr M'Connell, all witnesses were ordered out of Court. The complainant deposed that she left her husband on Sept. 13 ast, and that for 16 years ho had . Mr M'Connell objected that under section 5 of the Justice of the Peace Act, 1866, no allegations could bo preferred extending back beyond six months. Ho submitted that if his learned friend laid a foundation showing that during tho six months last past the accused had been guilty of habitual drunkenness and cruelty, then he could fairly go back with his evidence ; otherwise, the caßo must fall through. Mr M'Connell also urged, from causes of tho Married Women's Property Protection Act, 1860, and the Amendment Act, that his view of tho mattor must bo held. Mr Izard having replied to the question raised, the Bench hold that the objection must hold good. Mr Izard then asked that the allegation of drunkenness should be struck out, but this also was objected to, the Bench suggesting that a fresh information might be laid. Mr Izard would then ask leave to withdraw the case, under section 17 of the Justice of tho Peace Act, Mr M'Connoll on the other hand contending that he was entitled to a dismissal. The Bench agreed to allow the case I to bo withdrawn, whereupon Mr M'Connell made the somewhat novel application for costs as against the wife. This, however, was not entertained. Abusive Language. — James Gardner, theatrical agent, and his wife were charged with using abusive and threatening language to Bichard Clark, on Oct. 29. There was a cross summons between the parties. Mr Slater appeared for Clark, and Mr Joyce for Mr and Mrs Gardner. Bichard Clark deposed that James Gardner and his wifo called at his house in Kilmore street respecting some dogs of theirs which had been poisoned, and made use of the language complained of. He stated that ho had on ono occasion laid poison for some cats, but had not used any subsequently. Witness was cross-examined relativo to an application ho had made to Mr Gardner for an engagement as checktaker. Ho stated in reply to questions that ho did not know where Mr Gardner lived, and that he did not on Oct. 29 tell him he had laid poison for cats. William Clark gave corroborative evidence as to the threatening language used by Mrs Gardner. He did not think his father had laid poison lately. Heard Mr Gardner Bay he knew his father had a grudge against him. For tho defence, James Gardner stated that ho had known complainant over three years, and was engaged by him during an engagement with George Collier. From information received ho thought two dogs of his had been poisoned. Was not at Clark's house on Oct. 29 ; was then in Timaru, and produced a copy of the Timaru Herald, containing advertisement of a performance which ho was managing previous to that. Saw Clark about the dogs, and accused him of poisoning them. Clark said he laid poison for cats, and said ho was sorry the dogs got it. In cross-examination, witness said he was in Timaru a week, and although he could not mention the date upon which he cnlled at Clark's house, he was certain it must have been prior to his visit to Timaru. Ho was positivo that tho language attributed 1 to him and His wifo was not used, and would swear that Mrs Gardner did not call young • Clark a puppy or tell him to dry up. Witl ness told Clark that ho considered he had ! dono a mean, paltry thing ; his only object I in going to tho house was to ask Clark f. straightforwardly if ho had poisoned the r' dogs. He had an impression that Clark , might have formed a grudge against him for 3 having refused him an engagement. Mrs - Gardner deposed that on Oct. 29 she was at t home in Kilmore street. Her husband was s not at homo on that date, and she be!i licved ho was in Timaru. It would o be on the 21st, that thoy called at Clark's. She did not make use of any auch .language ■- ns had been attributed to her. Tho Bench s held that notwithstanding Clark's positivo e assertion as to the date, he must bo mistaken, f The case would bo dismissed. Eichard Clark I. was then charged with having on Nov. 2 used st abusive language to Bose Gardner. Comd plainant stated that she went to defendant's d house after a little monkey which had d escaped, ansl accused knocked it off the roof ■d of tho house with a pole, and she told him it not to kill it with tho pole, but to use poison it as he had done before. Ho replied that ho id would poison both her and the monkey, and as made use of a disgusting expression. In e- cross-examination witness said she had re:d ceiyci a summons before she kid the in-

a formation, otherwise she would not have j taken proceedings. He-examined witness j said she was advised by her solicitor f to take action. Accused had several times sr annoyed her since by grinning at her. j A little girl gave corroborative evidence. Dei fendant denied that he touched the monkey, 1 and alleged that abusive language was need by 3 complainants, while he denied having made i use of the words imputed to him. He also I declared that "he never knew the woman," i although he had summoned her for subsequently going to his house and abusing him. I — William Hill, before giving evidence for . the defence, wished to have his expenses . guaranteed, and was referred to the person i who subpoenaed him. Witness only heard P Clark say, "If you don't keep your monkey . away from here I'll kill it." Mrs Gardner [ replied that she would set the monkey on to l Clark, and witness " thought there was going 5 to be a monkey fight." In cross-examination j witness said that he was a chain away at the , time ; he had stated all he heard said. Case i dismissed.