MAGISTERIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9918, 5 August 1910, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Friday, Acgsst 5. (Before Mr TV A. B. Bailey, S.M.) Dbtjnxejwess.—Four first . offenders tor drunkenness were each fined 5s and costs, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment.—Mary Jane Betake; a statutory second offender, was convicted and discharged, and on the application of her husband a prohibition order was issued against her. A Double Ghabge.—Lena Urich, a young married woman, was charged with a second offence of drunkenness in six months and with having committed a breach of a prohibition order. She was convicted of drunkenness yesterday. Her husband said that the defendant had an uncontrollable temper, and when angry was not responsible for her actions. She had left his home last week in a great rage. He was prepared to take her back." Sub-In-spector M'Grath said that when arrested the woman was on the railway station, going back to her home, but her condition was such that it was deemed inadvisable to allow her to go on the train. The defendant stated that she wished to return to her husband. She was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called on - I , ■ * ■ By-law Oases.—For having ridden bicycles on footpaths the following were each fined 7s and costs .-—Herbert Silas Gold thorp, Alfred Clark, Bert Foster, John Commons, Denis Molloy, Thomas Warm, Henry Pratley arid Thomas Hazard. Hazard was also fined 7s and costs for having ridden a bicycle without a light at night. Tub Crossing.—J. A. Panhett was fined 10s and costs for having driven a motor-ear over the Bank of New Zealand crossing at other than a walking pace.

Bought Nor Stolen.—William Smart (Mr Cassidy) was charged with having on July 16 stolen a soda-water syphon valued at 3s 6d, the property of Saunders and Co. For the police it was stated that the syphon had been found in the possession of Smart, who had been arrested for drunkenness. He claimed that he had purchased it. E. A. James, of the Terminus Hotel, said that he had sold a syphon on July 16, and thought it was to Smart. Smart had called on the following day to inquire about it. The case was dismissed.

Reporting Accidents:—Arthur Oscar Woods was fined 10s and costs for having failed to report an accident in his factory, as required by the Factories Act.

Tttß Worse Half.—John Craik Bath was charged with having deserted his wife, for whom Mr A. W. Bishop appeared. Application was made for a. maintenance order. Tho complainant said that she had been married, two and a half years and had two children. Her husband had loft her last Easter, and since then had sent her £4 ss. Mr Bishop produced a disgusting letter written by Bath to his.wife, in which he said he would rather "do time" than keep her. Bath said he had left with her permission. She had been untidy. He was willing to take her back with liim to Napier. Bath was ordered to pa.y 15s a.week towards the wife's support.

Scaffolding Inspection.—Lewis Freeman admitted having erected a scaffolding over 16ft in height, without having first given notice to tho Inspector of Scaffolding. Ho was fined 40s and costs.

Domestic Difficulties.—Sarah Cowan (Mr Hunt) asked for a summary separation order against Robert Cowan (Mr Weston), her husband, alleging persistent cruelty. She said that she had been married fourteen yoars and had four children, the oldest of which was thirteen years. Her husband drank. Ho continually sworo at her, called her vile names, and had struck her. On Saturday ho had knocked her down, inflicting a wound on her face, and turned her out of tho. house at eleven o'clock at night. He was very drunk at the timo. The home was destitute as a result of his drinking. He was kind to tho children, but used bad language in front of them. She was frightened to go back to her husband. Ho had allowed her about '2os a week to keep the house, out of which ehe paid the rent. , She worked and. obtained money for the home. One child said that he had seen his father strike his mother several times. The defence was that the woman had neglected her home. Sho was excitable. The defendant said he had never struck his wife. On Saturday night she had demanded money of him, and when lie had refused had sworn at him. She had taken a picture from the wall and threatened him with it. He h°d caught hold of her, and had taken the picture from her. Then she had got tho fire shovel, and in picking it up had hit her head on the mantel-shell. Sho had threatened him. He admitted he had been slightly drunk. He had allowed her on an average £2 or its equivalent a week for housekeeping. He was willing to take his wife back. The order was granted, and the question of maintenance and the custody of the children was reserved until to-mor-row.

A Civrr, Action - .—Tn the civil notion, S G. Unwin (Mr Hunter) v. Henrv Box (Mr A. W. Bishop), the defendant was ordered to give up possession of a. lorry.