MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 150, 26 November 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHBISTCHDKCH. Thursday, November 26. [Before C, 0. Bowen, Esq., R.M., and Webb,, Esq. J.P.J INDECENCY IN THE GOVERNMENT DOMAINJames Brown and Mary Ellen Bryant, were charged withan offence of this nature— Brown was fined £5, and Bryant 40s, or indefault one week’s imprisonment;. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. William Cooper, for being drunk and a nuisance at the the theatre, was fined 20?»

breach op city bye laws. Frederick Lysaght, summoned for driving sheep through the streets during prohibited hours, was fined 10s, John Simpson, for being absent from Ins vehicle, was fined 10s. George Shaw, for driving 50 head of cattle and riding on the footpath at Park terrace, was fined 10s. VIOLENT ASSAULTS. Jules Scilles was charged with violently beating his wife, Elizabeth Scilles, Sergeant Wilson said from information he had received, he learnt that defendant had violently beaten his wife and broken her arm. He went to the house of Mrs Scilles, who would give him no information. He then thought it to be his duty to bring the matter before the Bench.

Mrs Scilles said she had been away from home two months, and when she returned her husband pulled her arm and broke it. He said at the time that he was very sorry for what he had done. He did not beat her about the head that evening. She did tell the doctor that her arm was broken by a fall.

Charles Fuchzard said that on the night of the 4th instant he was in defendant’s house between half-past nine and ten. Defendant had sent for him, and he thought he might be drinking, as when his wiferan away with another man Scilles took to drinking. When be arrived in the house defendant and his wife were having some words, defendant was showing her some photographs and she was crying. Scilles tried to strike his wife on the head, but he (witness) did not think he succeeded. He pulled her arm, and afterwards found it was broken. It was his (witness’s) opinion that defendant did not purposely do it, as he was a quiet man generally, and seemed to be so aggravated by the circumstances that he did not know what hi was doing. Dr Campbell stated that on the night of the 4th instant he was called to attend the complainant. She was in bed,'and the bones of her fore arm were broken. The messenger who called for him said the woman had fallen down, and she repeated this when he saw complainant. Defendant went into a history of his family grievances, and said his wife had not been a good woman, but had left him and gone to live with another man; and when she returned, smarting under his dishonor, he had pulled her by the arm and unintentionally broken it. His Worship said the police had very rightly laid the present information, having heard that the woman’s arm had been broken. Complainant had applied to him to withdraw the case, but he would not permit this. Defendant had, acting under aggravation, pulled his wife’s arm and unintentionally broken it; and, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he would dismiss the case, but defendant must promise that no violence must bo used the future.

Defendant made this promise, thanking his Worship sincerely for his leniency, and the case was dismissed.

[Mr Bowen here retired, and Messrs R.J.S Harman and Mr D. Caruthers then took seats on the Bench.] Alfred Stenning was charged with beating James Turnbull on the sth November.

The complainant said he delivered the daily paper to defendant, and on that day he asked him for payment when he rushed at him, and beat him. By defendant—When you shoved me off the ground that morning, I did not say that every time I saw you in the streets I would insult you for the twopence balance. Further evidence of the assault, and of defendant having used abusive language was given. Defendant called a witness, vs ho stated that when the complainant was delivering the paper that morning, defendant spoke to him about giving that paper up as he intended taking the GLOBE. Defendant then went to pay complainant the amount owing to him. He said he would give him 3s, and owe him the two twopence of 3s 2d, and when he found out that he was going to give up the paper he said that he did not pay him the twopence he would insult him every time he saw him. Case dismissed. The adjourned case against Hugh McClutchie for assaulting Louisa Sperry was called on. Complainant said thatof course McClutehie ill-treated her on the eleventh. It was all through an elderly female. McClutehie struck her on the temple with his fist, and there was a paint brush near, and of course she took it up and struck him back on the head with it, and that was all, A little girl who was present saw defendant strike complainant with his fist on the temple, and complainant strike him back with a paint brush. As defendant had been previously before the Court for this offence, he was ordered to find sureties to keep the peace for twelve months, himself in £SO, and two sureties in £25 each. The case of John MacKown for assaulting Elizabeth MacKown was adjourned for a week. The case against Mary Genet for using abusive and threatening language to Kate M. Seymour, was adjourned until the 3rd September. LEITHFIELD. (Before G. L. Mellish, Esq, E..M.) ASSAULT AND BATTERY. Johnston v Dillon.—An information for assault and battery. Mr Cowlishaw appeared for complainant, and Mr O’Neil for defendant. Before proceeding with the case, Mr O’Neil stated there was another case against Dillon, and two cross summonses, Dillon v Lake and Dillon v Bunton. and he asked the Court to hear the cases together. Mr Cowlishaw The Court agreed to do so. Edward Johnston deposed that on Monday, the 16th November, he and his gang of men were working on rural section 7359 on the line of railway between Ashley and Kowai. A few minutes before 12 o’clock, the defendant came up, and after some remarks about a horse he went on towards his house. He returned after dinner with horse and dray. I said to him you cannot take that horse and dray through as the *ate is not wide enough. He said I will see. [e then went up to our horse and cart, which was being loaded, took the horse by the bridle, and commenced to beat it across the head and shoulders. He seized me by the collar. I then called to the men to come and help me. One or two of them came. He gave one of them a blow, and there was a bit of a scrimmage. He and one of the men then had a round or two. Dillon came

back to the horse and dray, picked up a long handled shovel, and said—“lf you don’t clear out I will make you.” He then struck the horse across the head with it. The blinker received the blow. I believe but for the blinkers it would have killed the horse—it bent the shovel (shovel produced is the one). He struck the horse several times. The men again interfered. We had nearly finished in the paddock, and we shortly went out. The plan produced shows the line of the railway, and the spot where we were working. It is a General Government railway, duly proclaimed. Mr E. G. Wright is the contractor. We were working under him.

Cross-examined by Mr O’Neill The defendant Dillon did not say anything about its being his land, and that he would not allow us to enter, as he had not been paid ferit. I did not hear him say so to anybody The evidence of Johnston was corroborated by Bunton, Lake and Shepherd. Mr Cowlishaw put in evidence the proclamation under the Immigration and Public Works Act, 1871, proclaiming the line of railway and defining the lands required to be taken for the railway. Mr O’Neil, for the defence, said—That the defence was that the acts were legally done in the assertion of his client’s title to the land. 2nd. That a question of title being bona fide made by the defendant, and raised in the case, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Mr Cowlishaw suggested that it would be more convenient to hear the defendant’s evidence before arguing the questions of law.

The defendant deposed—Previous to the 16th November, I gave notice that I would not allow the men to enter upon my land, as I had received no communication about it, and I had not been paid. I made inquiry about a month ago who was the person to negotiate with, and I then wrote to Mr Maude, but I received no answer for two or three weeks, not until after the occurrence on the 16th November. I then received a letter making me an offer. (Letter produced.) On the 16th November I saw that the men had entered upon my land. I gave them notice to clear off it, as it was my property, and they had no right. I asked them to produce their authority. I told them if they did not clear out by after dinner time I would make them. I went back after dinner and spoke to the foreman, and requested him to leave. He said he would not or could not. I then walked up to the horse and took him by the bridle, to lead him out. I may have used the whip once or twice, but very lightly. Johnston then came up to me and I put out my hand to keep him off—on his shoulder, I think. Ho called the other men, who came up, and one of them, Lake, gave a hit. I received several blows —marks were left upon me. Witness admitted taking up the shovel, and striking the horse upon the rump. He denied striking it on the head, or in any way so as to injure it. A medical witness was called, who gave evidence as to bruises upon defendant. Mr O’Neill, for the defence, contended that there was a bona fide assertion of title on the part of the defendant, which was quite sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Court. He cited from Saunders on practice of the Petty Sessions Court. He urged that it was monstrous to suppose that the plaintiff and his workmen were justified in forcibly entering upon the land. No notice whatever had been given to the defendant; no offer made. The letter of Mr Maude was a recognition of the title of the defendant. Until compensation, the land was defendant’s, and everybody intruding was a trespasser.

Mr Cowlishaw argued that the proclamation of May, 1873, by virtue of section 41 of the Immigration and Public Works Act, 1871, vested the lands, together with the yearly profits thereof, and the interest of every person therein in the Queen as fully, to all intents and purposes, as if the same had been conveyed by the person legally entitled to sell and convey the lands. The proclamation was in due form, and therefore conferred a statutory title upon the Queen, without any further action. The defendant could not possibly set up title against the statute, which ousted him of his land, but gave him right to money compensation, and provided the means of obtaining it. Laches in paying compensation did and could not destroy or defeat the Queen’s title. It was laid down that there must be a reasonable and fair supposition that the defendant had a right to do the act complained of, or that it was legally possible for the defendant to have the title he claimed. In this case it was not legally possible for the defendant to have a title, and his claim was absurd. Further, in any event, the defendant used unnecessary violence. The Resident Magistrate said that the Bench thought the effect of the proclamation under the Act was to render it legally impossible for the defendant to imagine fairly and reasonably that he had a title to the land. The complainant was on the line of the railway, and within the provisions of the Act. The defendant’s conduct was most unjustifiable, especially in his ill-treatment of the horse. Having regard to the fact that the defendant was under surety to keep the peace, the Bench would not (as they otherwise would have done) inflict heavy penalties. Fined 20s in one case, 5s in the other, with costs and witnesses expenses.