MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 20053, 16 September 1920, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TO-DAY'S CASES. CHRISTCHURCH, ~^ r V. G. Gay Presided at to-day’s Cour** °* lr * 3^c * lurc h Magistrate's DRUNKENNESS. A first offender, who did not appear, was convicted of drunkenness at Suniner yesterday, and was fined ss. in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment, DESERTING SHIP. Duncan Nimmo and Harry Lindsay, two ( lads irae Scotland,” were charged with deserting from the s.s. Matntua at Wellington on August 31 last. SubInspector Dew showed the Magistrate telegrams from Wellington to Dunedin, iho accused wore convicted and discharged. Ol,p MAN ASSAULTED. Grey-haired, face-battered, crippled, and held up by two constables. Patrick' Reardon, aged sixty years, was charged with drunkenness. Ho pleaded guilty to “having had a little drop.” It was his second offence, but in view of his damaged state, Mr Day convicted and discharged him. * ' ' William Webster, a hefty-looking man of twenty-four years, pleaded guilty to a, charge of assaulting Reardon. Sub-Inspector Dew said that' the assault which was unprovoked, took place in tlio right-of-way by the Masonic, Hotel. Accpscd struck tho old man with his clenched fist, knocked him down, picked him up, and knocked his head against the wall. Accused, in defence, said that ho was in the bar of tho hotel, when Reardon asked him for a beer. On his being refused, he called witness a Sinn Feiner. The barman put Reardon outside, but ho returned and asked witness to como out and fight. He went outs de, and Reardon bumped his head against the concrete. Witness, who did not want to fight, then hit him. Mr Day: You ought to have had more sense. A young man should not fight an old one. You will be fined £3, in default fourteen days imprisonment. CIVIL SITTINGS. GALA COMMITTEE TO PAY. Reserved judgment was given in the claim Fanny Berry (Mr Maodougall) v. tho Sumner Gala Committee. (Mr Cuthbert), for £2O, being tho alleged loss incurred by plaintiff through tho defendants erecting a tea tent on Gala Day b.y plaintiff's premises. Mr Day said that the only question to be decided was whether the tent was such an obstruction on the highway as to entitle tho plaintiff to damages. It was proved that her takings were substantially less than on pervious gala days, when the tea tent was erected some distance away. She would be awarded £7 damages, with costs, against Messrs Black and Dash. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. George Shamy was ordered to pay Graham, Wilson and Smellie £1 5s lid forthwith, in default seven days’ imprisonment. Joseph Barron was ordered to pay Charles Horniblow £5 2s, in default seven days’ imprisonment. Harry West Hill (Mr Gee) was ordered to pay Yung Sing Tim (Mr Sim) £75 7s, in default two months’ imprisonment. Joseph Barron was ordered to pay Frances Wilson £5 10s, in default seven days’ imprisonment. " A STEPFATHER’S BOARD. Mrs G. Congdon, Carlisle Street, Sydenham (Mr Thomas) proceeded against tho Public Trustee (Mr i/oipn), aa administrator ot tlio estate of the late James Gray, claiming £l2 for twelve weeks’ board and lodging of her stepfather, James Gray. Complainant said that she received no payment from her stepfather who, she understood, had no means except his old age pension. She had received £7 from him as “ presents. ” Mr Dolph said that the defence was based on there being no contract between the parties. (Proceeding.) LYTTELTON. (Before Messrs W. T. Lester, J.P. and F. S. Norton, J.P.) Michael Cosfield, charged with using obscene language and assaulting Edward Bartlett, was fined £5 on the first charge and £2 on \tho second charge. The police stated thf.t accused who was not drunk, had gone onto tlu ferry steamer Maori,-and had created a disturbance, assaulting the steward who spoke to him. He then went onto the wharf, where ho used tho language complained cf. When arrested ho had £6O in his possession, John Sinclair, alias Graham, charged with stealing a portmanteau and cou tents, tho property of 'William Trevenwick, was remanded, on the application of the police, until September 22 The police staled that, though the value of the stolen articles had been placed at £2, they wore really worth about £2O. Some of the articles had not yet been recovered and tho police wished for a remand in order to trace them.