CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4715, 11 June 1883, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

This Day. (Before B. Beetham, Esq., BrM.)

DbunkehhebS.— Peter M'Grath, who had been drunk and guilty of " disgraceful conduct " at the railway station on Saturday afternoon, was fined £1 6s. — Charles James was fined £1 for drunkenness, and ordered to pay 63 for damage he had done to a cab. — May Mitchell and John Finney wore fined 10a ea^h for drunkenness. — Mary Ann Duffus admitted an indulgence in brandy, which had "taken effect on her." She had "intended to go to Scotland," but his Worship thought this might be deferred for a timo, and sentenced her to seven days' hard labour. — Four first offenders were mulcted in the usual penalty.— J. Manly, who had made uae of obscene hnguage at the Gaiety Theatre on Sunday morning during the " Bolvation Army" service, and had also been drunk, was fined £3, or in default six days' imprieonment.

6TBAHNa SAliVAGß.— James Manly alias Maine, nnd John Oonway were charged with stealing a set of studs, valuo 7s 63, the property of J. Glasson. Inspector Fender called J. GlaesoD, a h^irdreseer, whose shop had been partially destroyed by the firo on Sunday morning. He stated that he saw the accused Oonway about his premiaes at an early stage of the fire. Ho assisted to siye goods. The sot of studs produced witness idectiQed as his. The set of studs was found in Manly's possession ef ter he was locked up for drunkenness. He told Bergeanfc Mooro that Conw&y had given them to him. When Oonway was arrested ha admittod having givea tho studa to Manly. la answer to the Bench, Manly repeated the statement ho had matfo to the police. Oonway said he had been assisting to save goods from the fire, filling his pockets with small goods and emptying them outside. The case of studs he found in his pocket afterwards, and gaTO them to Manly to take care of till he could return them to Mr Glasson. Inspector Ponder said that he knew of previous convictions againsfc Manly; Oonway bad recently oorae from Dunedin. Before sentencing the accused, a similar charge against Jumos Thompson, for stealing a set of studs va'ue 7s 6i, and a meereohaum pipe, valuo ss, also the property of Mr Qlasson, was heard. The accused had been found by Sergeant Moore wearing the studs, and with the pipe in his poseeesisn. Ho stated that he had " picked up" the articles at a house of ill-fame in Salisbury street, which had been vieited on Sunday by tho two last mentioned accused. His Worship pentenced each of the three accused to fourteen days' hard labour. Pereons who attended fires were upon their honour not to steal the goods of those who were sufferers. liAsoEuv ay A Sbsvani. — Blizxbeth Robs Kesby, a servant girl lately in the employ of Mr 0. A. Ulrich, was accused of stealing su books and a quantity of wearing apparel, value £1, belonging to her roaster. Accused, a young woman who had recently arrived in tho Colony, admitted haviDg put the articles in her box, which she had loft at prosecutor's, but stated that tho wearing apparel was only rubbish sho had picked from the floor : and the books she had been reading. His Worship remanded the accused till tho following day. Labcbny tb-)m a Dwbilikg.— Fr^k Springs was aocused of stealing ft 6» lTer Waltham lever watch, value £6, and 129 Gi in money, the property of W. H. White*

Inspector Fender called W. H. White, a farmer, living tn Shand's track, near the WheaUheaf Uolel, wh. stated that he had emplojed aoo.usod at potato digging for about a fortnight previous to his arrest. On June 4 witness had occasion to go to Prebbleton, leaving accused and a man named Stirling on the premises. On returning in the evening he found tho lock of t. door leading from the kitchen to the interior of the house had been forced. He mifßod g> silvor watch and some money. Aocuged and Stirling were comiDg towards the house when witness returned. They Bad they had seen no person about the premises thatmorning. Witness discharged accused. The watch and chain produoed were wHnoue' property. Da-rid Stirling, a labourer employed by prosecutor, eaid that while hie maßter was absent he was in the detoohed kitoheD, and beard tbe door of the house oreakinp, and afterwards bang. Accused went to the house with a oandle, and stayed there about two minutes. After accused was discharged ho had aeked witness, in oaee anyone made ii quitiee, to say that he (accused) was asleep in bed when witness c*me home that evening. Thomas M'Grandel, landlord of the Wheatsheaf Hotel, Sband'a Track, deposed that acoused came to his house on Juce 5. Shortly after 6 p.m. a disturbance took place, lin which acou&ed was conoerned, and he was taken away by tha police on the morning of June 6. After accused had gone witness noticed the watch and chain produced lying close to the hotel under the verandah. Gave it to Gonstabln Weatborley the same evening. To prisoner : You stopped in the house on the night of June 4. I recollect you coming tho day before the disturbance. Jane M'GhrßndeJ, wife of last witness, gave similar evidence. Accused was in the house on June 4, but she could not fay whether he slept there He often slept in tbe hotel. Constable Weatherley deposed that when he arrested accused be laid he knew ho was suspected, and they could do as they liked. The aooused having bden cautioned, eaid that he stopped at the Wheatsheaf Hotel on Friday night fortnight. On Saturday he went to work with Mr White potato digging, and worked there till the Sunday week following. A bag of potatoes was stolen on the following Sunday night from tbe paddock. Mr White told him that he (accused) would have to pay for them. On Monday, June 4, acoused went in search of tbe potatoes, he was unsuccessful, and on returning that night told Stirling he would get his money, and leave, as he would not be the loser through persons takirg potatoes out of the paddock. Aocused made a very lengthy statement in denial of the charge, and at its conclusion was formally committed for trial at the next Supreme Court sessions. Beforo the prisoner was removed, his Worship referred to the previous charge against him for violently assaulting Mr M'Grandel, to whioh accused had pleaded guilty on a previous occasion. Accused evidently had an uncontrollable temper, which had led to the assault. He would be sentenced for this offence to six weeks' imprisonment with hard labour. Stealing peom a Shop.— George Fryer, George Faust, and John Plunketb were brought before the Court under an aoousation of breaking into and stealing from the shop of Mr 0. P. Hulbert. Before the Clerk read the obarge, Mr Stringer, who appeared for Plunkett, said that if the charge was reduced to one of simple larceny, his client would plead guilty. Inspector Pender explained the circumstances of the case to the Bench. Ho had no objection to the case being dealt with summarily if passible. Acoused stated that their ages were as follows : Fryer, 20 yean; Faust 19, Plunkett 16. Inspector Pender said that nothing previous was known againit any of tho accused; and judging from his conversation, Plunkott appeared to be very simple-minded in his manner. Mr Btringer urged that Plunkett had been led away by tho others. His Worship feared that was always the case with young men who did wrong for the first time— they were led away. Still, as there was aothing known against the accused, and they were young, he was disposed to consider it as one of those cases in whioh justice should temper mercy, and deal with it summarily. In answer to the Bench, all the aoeuaod pleaded guilty to larceny. Inspector Pender said that the accused had evidently entered Mr Hulbert' s by removing a pane of glass from a baok window, and had taken a cheque for £3 2s Id, half-a--dozen shirts and a hat; the total value of the property being about £7. Some of the Bhirts were found at the Central Hotel ia a room which Che accused had occupied together, at d tiny had all gone together to the British Hotel on the day after tho offence was committed, and endeavoured to change the cheque. Plunkett was arrested shortly after, but the other two had kept out of the way, acd were eventually taken into custody on board the Wakatipu, just before she started for Wellington. His Worship did not thiak ho would be justified in letting tho accused go unpunished. He would consider his derision; and for ttiat purpose the aoamed were remanded to the following day.

BHKAonna or licbnbino Act.— George Collier, of the Royal George Hoiel, was charged with supplying beer to two persons, not lodgers or travellers, on Sunday, May 27. Mr M'Oonnel, for defendant, admitted the facts of the case, but callod defendant, who stated that he was in bed ill at the time, suffering from inflammation of the kidneys. He had not given the young man who supplied tho liquor any general instructions, except that he was not to give anybody credit, and on that particular Sunday evening he had told the barman to look up the hotel, and go out. Mr M'Connell quoted authorities to show that the liooßsee was not responsible for the acts of his sorvant, unless directly cognisant of them. His Worship reserved judgment to June 13 — F. Htdfield, licensee of the Langham Hotel, was accused of allowing dice to be used for gambling purposes on May 30. Inspector Pender called F. W. Millett, who stated that he and the barman "shook" for drinks in the bar on tho date named. The barman had brought oub the dice. Witness noticed they were false dice, one had two sides on it. He took the dice in his hand intending to (brow them away, but ho was pulled baok by the barman and another man, and the dice taken out of his pocket, where he had put them. One man took hold of witness by the back of the neok, and another held his arms and took the dice from him. Witness complained of the assault, because he was very week, and they knew it. Witness had thrown for drinks before thiß with the barman and a Btranger. Witness lost. Did not see Mr Had field about. Cross-examined : Did not remember tho date. Witness was quite sober. Had never asked the barman to toss for drink). Two witnesses gave corroborative evidence. One of them said he had seen the barman pull Mr Millett back into the bar. John Hodges, the barman referred to, said that Mr Millett had come to the hotel and asked him to tosß for drinks. Witness refused, saying Mr Millett should pay what he owed, *nd he would not allow " tossing " in the bar. Mr Millett then exclaimed that he was among a lot of ruffians, and became noisy, so witness put him out, with the threat of prosecuting him as a vagrant if he came baok. There were no dice in the bar, and witness was forbidden to uso dice iv that bar, because it was far too public for anything of tho sort. Aleck Cookburn, a carrier, said ho was in the bar, and he corroborated tho barman's statement. His Worship taid he would not oanvict in the faoo of the evidence. (&S9 dismissed.