MAGISTERIAL

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5485, 10 February 1896, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

9 CHRISTCHTJRCH. Monday, Feb. 10. (Before Mr C. M. Gray, J.P., Mr E. Green, J.P., and Mr J. Gapes, J.P.) Drunkenness. — A man who had not been previously convicted was fined 5s and costs, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. — Mary Cunningham was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Larceny. — Catherine Stevenson, on remand, was charged with having on Jan. 7, at Christchurch, stolen a washing wringer, value Bs, the property of A. F. J. Mickle. Accused pleaded guilty. Sergeant-Major Mason said the accused went into Dr Mickle's house on the date mentioned, and stole the wringer. She was drunk at the time; and afterwards soldg the wringer to a second-hand dealer for 4s. When she became sober she went back to the second-hand dealer's and returned the 4s to the proprietor for the wringer. Accused was sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment. A Series op Charges. — John Mills was charged with having on Feb. 5 been drunk in Gloucester Street, with having resisted Constable Aldridge while in the execution of his duty, and with having damaged Constable Aldridge's shako to the extent of 10s 6d. . Mr M'Cpnnel appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. The evidence for the prosecution was to the effect that on the evening of the date mentioned accused with two other men was in the passage leading into the pit in the theatre creating a disturbance, that he was drunk, and refused to leave the building, and resisted the constable outside the theatre. Four witnesses stated that the accused was drunk. For the defence, evidence was given by five witnesses , to show that the accused was not drunk, but was excited owing to not being able to get his money back after having paid for admission to the theatre, which was crowded. The witnesses stated that the accused did not resist the constable or damage his shako. The Bench said it was quite clear that the whole trouble arose through the theatre people taking the accused's money when they had no right to do so. The accused had paid to see the performance, but was not able to get into the theatre, and he naturally wanted his money back. The theatre people refused to do this, and the accused became excited. The evidence with regard to the charge of drunkenness was not conclusive, and the charge would be dismissed. The other two charges would also be dismissed. . (Before Mr R. Beetham, S.M.) Maintenance. — Patrick Malone was charged with failing to provide for his six children. In this case, which had been adjourned, Mr Lane appeared for the Charitable Aid Board and Mr Loughnan for Malone. Mr Lane stated that the executor, who was the trustee of the .£IOO left for the children on their attaining a certain age, was quite willing that the Charitable Aid Board should receive the amount on condition that the Board sent the children to Nelson Industrial School and indemnified the trustees against any future charges. His Worship pointed out that this would mean that the ratepayers who at present were, through the Charitable Aid Board, paying £1 16s '6d a week for the maintenance of Malone's six children would incur a liability of from .£9OO to .£IOOO, the cost of their maintenance at the school, until they arrived at certain ages. He would, in view of the fact that the trustees could, if they chose, utilise the .£IOO for the immediate maintenance of the children, refuse to send them to Nelson. He would order Malone to contribute 15s a week to the support of bis children. Civil Cases. — Judgment Summons — A. Admore v. H. Cox, claim £2 7s. Defendant did not appear, and an order was made that the money be paid forthwith, in default one week's imprisonment. — Joseph Frederick Lewthwaite v. John Lewthwaite, claim .£483 16s Bd. Mr Joynt and Mr Slater appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Flesher for defendant. Mr Joynt stated that consent had been obtained to hear the case in that Court, and the snm of .£lB 16s 7d had been paid into Court. His Worship ruled that the amount could not be acknowledged, as the items in respect of which it was paid were not particularised. There was also a coiinter claim of -£434 7s 2d. Plaintiff stated that his claim was for work done while employed by defendant, his brother. He had charged Is an hour while working, and 4s a day when engaged and waiting for work. By Mr Flesher: Arrived in the'colony in 1890. The Court was occupied the whole of the morning and until our going to press, with the details of the account.