MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1519, 30 December 1878, Page 3

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHKiSTCHUECH. Monday, December 30. [Before G. L. Hellish, Esq., KM.] Dbunk and Disobdebly.—A first offender was fined ss. Child Desebtion.—Mary Belinda Sweeney was charged with neglecting to provide her child with adequate means pt support. Complainant said she had had possession of the child since its birth. Defendant agreed to pay 10s a week for its maintenance, which at first had been paid, the last money she received was 30s in October, and there was now £8 13a due. The defendant said she was •willing to take her child back from the witness and pay the arrears due, but they only amounted to a little over £6. She had been brought from Wellington to answer the Bummonß. His Worship said the amount due was £8 13s, and asked if defendant could pay it. She said she could pay £7 at once, and the remainder to-morrow. Under the circumstances. His Worship ordered defendant to pay the £7, and allowed the case to *tand over until the 2nd inst. Causing an Obstruction.—Alfred Bower was summoned for allowing his horse and cab to remain on the stand in front of the railway station on November 27th, thereby causing an obstruction. Defendant denied the obstruction. He admitted being told by the railway constable to remove on to the stand, and he did so, but returned on being hailed by a lady, and remained only long enough to take his fare. These circumstances were corroborated by a witness. The case was dismissed. John Brooks, for leaving his •horse and cart, was fined 10s. Chimney on Fibe. Elizabeth Mitchell, for allowing her chimney to take fire, was fined 10s. George Holland and W. Liddiard for the same offence were fined the same amount. Not Undeb Contbol Nicolo Columbus was summoned for leaving his horse and cart at such distance as to be removed from his control. Defendant admitted leaving his cart, but said it was in charge of a boy, who allowed the horse to start. The explanation was accepted and the case was dismissed. Illegally Bubning Eubbish. Maurica Harris was summoned for setting fire to a quantity of rubbish in his garden on the 11th December, contrary to the city By-laws. A neighbor proved the commission of the offence. John Thome admitted lighting the fire, which consisted of weeds, docks, &c, but was not aware it was against the law. The town clerk said the defendant had spoken to him about lighting a fire on the day in question, but had not given the written notice as required by law. A fire of 10s was imposed. Causing an Obstruction. Thomas Dalton, for allowing cattle to graze on the North town belt, was fined 10s. Beeach of City By-Laws.—John An. derson was summoned for erecting a scaffolding on the footway in Cashel street without obtaining the permission of the City Council, also with neglecting to have a light upon it contrary to the city by-laws. The offences were admitted, and a fine of 10a in dieted in each case. Off the Stand.—Philip Gregory, for allowing his licensed cab to stand elsewhere than on the cabstand in Gloucester street, and for leaving the same, was fined 10s. George Smith, similarly charged, denied it, and called a witness to prove that he was only there temporarily on business, and not plying for hire. His Worship said there was a discrepancy in the dates, but he would give defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the case. Bbeach of Pubiic-house Obdinancb Alfred Gee was summoned lor allowing the light in front of his licensed house to be out on the night of December Bth, he was fined ss. Obscene Language.—Margaret Bowen and Ellon Talbot were charged with making use of obscene languarge in a public place on the Bth of December. The defendant Bowen admitted using the language comp Lined of, which was of the filthiest description. Talbot denied using bad language, and threw all the blame on Bowen. Bowen was fined 20s, and her companion the same amount. George Tibbs pleaded guilty to the same offence, but said he had had great provocation. A fine of 20s was inflicted, with the expenses of two witnesses amounting to 10s. StbayHobses and Cattle.—The following fiersons were fined the usual amount for alowing horses and cattle to wander at large : W. J. Fisher, J. Ballantyne, Alexander Cowan, D. Manning, A. Wyatt, T. Love, A. Wright, John Wilson, Alfred Wright, Wm. Thomson, George E. Drew, William Miles, and Michael Howard. Dog Tbespabsing.—Arthur Gapes was summoned for allowing a dog to wander in the North Park on the 7th of December. The defendant said the dog was his brother-in-law's, and had followed him into the park. Ho was leading the dog with a handkerchief round his neck, but the dog slipped it and got away. The case was dismissed. Eose Tombs was summoned for allowing her dog similarly to trespass. The dog was explained to bo " a little wee '' Skyo terrier and perfectly harmless. A fine of 10s was imposed. A case against Henry Potter, a new arrival, was dismissed on paying 6s 6d costs, on the ground that he had only been in the province seven weeks, and was ignorant of the Park regulations. Unbegistehed Dogs.—Henry Cookenson was fined 10a for having an unregistered dog in his possession. Enoch Hamilton and Wm. Clements were also summoned for the same offence. Both the cases wore dismissed, as in that of Enoch Hamilton, defendant said his dog was registered but he could not lay his hand on the receipt at the time, but he had the collar. The defendant handed to the Bench his certificate of registration. The constable who Lad the information could not say whether the dog alleged to bo unregistered wußadogor a slut, or auy particulars about its color. In the cu. j e of William Clements, defendant swore that he told the constable his three dogs were registered,and he could produce their collars. [Collars produced in Court.] The evidence- of the informing constable was equally vague in this instance, and it did not appear that he had taken any steps to fes t the truth of the defendant's statement to him. In dismissing the last ease,his Worship allowed costs to tho defendant, to come out of the pocket of the constable who laid the information. Mr Inspector Hickson said in addition to this the police authorities could deal with the constable as to the manner in which lie had got up the case. Indecent Assault. —James Horatio GVey K>ig was charged with indecently assaulting Priscilla Coppoek on the 26th December. Mr Holmes appeared for the prisoner. On the application of Mr Inspector Hickson, the case was remanded until the following morning, and tho ordered to attend. DisouKDrANCt; ahanAitbkntigk- Arthur Hill, a lad of about seventeen years of age, was summoned for disobeyirg Ida masters, Mesers Morgan and O.iLhy, by absenting him.-elf from their- premie on Anniversary Day. Mr John Morgan Ta : lor, one of the prosecutors, said the lad v»u» almost beyond their control. The real fact v. as that the boy bad got on so well in his bush-ess that he Was getting independent, and did all' in his

power in the way of, aggravation, of which he was a proficient, to induce them to give him his dischargo before his time was out. His Worship read the clause of the Act to the defendant to convince him that he wap liable to three days' solitary confinement every time he was brought up, and advised him to accept his position, ar.cl do his duty by his masters. The case- was then dism't'ed. Maintenance. —Eobert Wakeley was summoned for neglecting to provide his wife with adequate means of support, and also with failing to furnish her with food and medicines during her illness. The complainant said she only wished her husband to pay for her maintenance during tho two months she was absent from him through her illness. She also wanted protection for her earnings arid the restitution of her sewing machine, by which she got her living. The defendant said a deed of separation had been drawn up with their mutual consent, but it had never been signed. The complainant said the deed hud been so worded that no one would sign it. Defendant said he had three children by a former wife, but had -no objection to contribute reasonably to the support of the complainant. Ho earned 48s per week, out of which he paid 30s for board and lodging. The complainant said she would be contented to accept 12s per week while Bhe was ill, and an order was made for that amount, His Worship accompanying it with a sharp reprimand for the defendant's heartlessness. Unbbanded Sheep.—F. Dillon, for having two mobs of unbranded sheep in his possession, was fined 10s. Illegal Fishing.—Mr G. Holmes for defendant. Alfred Jardine was summoned for fishing in the Avon without a permit from the Acclimatisation Society. David Douglas, a ranger, proved the act of fishing. Defendant told him he had a licence, but it was at home. Subsequently found that he had not got one. Mr Holmes handed in a license to fish from last October. The witness said the permit had been obtained after the day on which the offence wag committed. Mr Holmes submitted that the license was retrospective and authorised, the defendant to fish from the 16th October to March. The complainants could not go behind their own authority. His Worship said he took it the point turned on whether the defendent was fishing without a license—now had he a license ? Mr Holmes submitted he had, as the license now produced covered the act of fishing alleged in the information, or any previous or subsequent ones, within the dates and months mentioned on the license. His Worship considered it to be a very dangerous precedent to admit the condonation of an offence already committed by the subsequent act of taking out a permit, which provided for the future. He must differ from Mr Holmes. In cross-examination the witness continued that it was between two arid three o'clock when he saw the defendant fishing. Mr Farr, jun., proved that the defendant took out a license at a quarter to four o'clock on the 17th inst. This was the case for the society, A witness named Bachelor, called by the defendant remembered accompanying him on the day mentioned in the information, but could give no evidence that bore on the case. His Worship said the method adopted by the defendant of fishing with a very short rod and line, on a bright day, was well known amongst anglers to be a very "killing one." The defendant evidently knew what he was about, as his Worship, speaking from experience, could testify to. He should fine the defendant 205., the cost of a license, and costs 6s 6d. rLeft sifting.!