RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH.—-Thursday, Feb. 16. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M., and a full bench : of Magistrates.) I Drunk and Disori>em.t.~ John lleid was charged with this offence. There was also another charge against him, namely, that of resisting the police in the execution of their duty. It appeared that the prisoner was given in charge by his wife, whom he was violently abusing. When the constable interfered, the prisoner threw a bottle at him. He was standing at the door of his own house at the time. The Inspector corroborated the evidence already adduced, and stated that the prisoner had caused considerable damage to some articles in Coker's bar. Some further testimony was offered, and the bench considering the case to be proved, fined him 10s, with a caution as to his future conduct. Assault.—Musgrave W. Anderson was charged with having committed an assault upon John Charles Brooke. Mr. Garrick appeared for the prosecution, the defendant conducting his own case. Mr. John Chas. Brooke: I know the defendant. I was at my place of business on February 14, between the hours of 3 and 5 p.m. Captoiu Anderson, accompanied by Mr. C. Ollivier, asked me to go to Birdsey's Hotel, as he wished to speak to me. We went into the private bar. The door was locked by the defendant. He accused me of making statements derogatory to his character; he offered me three alternatives, either to be horse-whipped, to apologise, or to have an action brought against me, I giving him a written guarantee to abide the action. I declined, as I had said nothing but what was fair for electioneering purposes. I asked what he accused me of saying ? He refused to tell me, but stated that I had made some statements against his character to a person in the Riccarton road. Mr. Ollivier, senior, was peeping through a glass do ir. Mr. Moorhouse came in, and I asked him to state what I was accused of saying, and to whom I had said it. Mr. Moorhouse refused to tell me: the door being locked, the defendant struck me with a whip across the face. I never said anything personally derogatory to the defendant's moral character ; I swear this. I have said thafr I consider the defendant as politically an unfit person to be in the Provincial Council. Defendant then went to my shop, and told my assistant to get some plaister ready, as he had severely injured me. By the defendant: You asked me for an apology. I asked to be brought face to face with my accuser. You asked me to drop the word political, as you were there to defend your personal character. I asked the name of my accuse! 1 ; you told me that Mr. Moorhouse was not the only person to whom the statements had been made. Mr. Ollivier, senior, was looking through the glass door; he came into the room at my request. You repeated in his presence what you had said before. Mr. Ollivier said, " Captain Anderson is a friend of mine, and I will believe what he says." You told me that it had been traced to me through eight persons that I had brought the most frightful imputation against your character. I denied this, and asked to be brought face to face with them. Mr. Moorhouse came in, and said—" You have said nothing distinctly against Captain Anderson's character; but you left a nasty impression upon my mind, and upon that of Mr. Duncan, who was present at the conversation." Mr. Moorhouse called me a liar. I told him that he had no right to say so. I went to the bar to get some lemonade. 1 distinctly refused to apologise. You struck me with a whip. I came close to you, and we fell into the adjoining room. I cannot say what took place afterwards. You told me that you wanted a private explanation. I refused to give any.

By Mr. Garrick: The defendant positively declined to state what the charge he accused me of bringing against his character was. I refused to make any apology until I was brought face to face with my accuser. I did not retaliate ; I had not the chance.

Mr. W. S. Moorhouse: I know the plaintiff. I had the pleasure of shaking hands with him yesterday. I was at Birdsey's on the 14th February, about three p.m. I weiit there for luncheon, and went into the little bar to have some private conversation with Mr. Ollivier. We heard high words injthe adjoining room. I recognised the defendant's voice, who was highly excited. Mr. Brooke denied having made some statements, which lam sure he did make. I am sorry to say that I called him a liar. I saw the defendant with his coat off, and a whip in his hand. I advised him to put down the whip, and if he had any grievance to complain of, he had better consult a solicitor. He did not take my advice. Whilst in the next room I heard the sound Of a whip, and I believe that Mr. Brooke got a severe thrashing. Mr. Brooke stated that he considered the defendant a very unfit person to be in the Council; he added that he had been in Melbourne when some reflections were thrown upon the defendant's character. I warned him to be careful, as I was convinced that the defendant was a gentleman, as I had the proofs of it in my office. Mr. Brooke denied having made the statements in question, and then I called him a liar. Mr. Brooke took his thrashing very meekly indeed. I told Mr. Brooke that I considered him such a worthless cur that were I in defendant's position, I should not strike him. I advised the defendant not to strike Mr. Brooke. I considered that I acted as a personal friend to the complainant, because 1 advised the defendant not to 'strike such a miserable cur. The chastisement ought to have been inflicted at the cart's tail, by the common hangman. Mr. T. S. Duncan was called, and stated, in answer to the defendant : 1 met Mr. Brooke in Cathedral square, whilst walking in company with Mr. Moorhouse. The latter asked him for his vote. Mr. Brooke expressed his surprise that we should identify ourselves with such a fellow as Anderson, adding that he had known him in Melbourne, where he had been guilty of " disgraceful conduct." lam not sure that these were the exact words ; at all events, it is the purport of them. Mr. J. Ollivier stated, in answer to questions from the defendant: On Tuesday, I was in the Jockey Club room, and talking to Mr. Moorhouse. I heard you ask the barmaid to retire, as it was not a scene for women. I heard voices in the outer room ; I looked through a glass door. Mr. Brooke said "there is Mr. Ollivier—l will call hifti in, so that he may witness all that passes." I heard Mr.- Brooke refuse to comply with any of the alternatives offered. He flatly denied having said anything derogatory to your character. Mr. Moorhouse came in and asked Mr. Brooke how he dared to deny the statements which he had made in the presence of himself and Mr. Duncan. Mr. Brooke asked to be brought face to face with his accusers ; you replied that you were his accuser, (Witness here repeated the facts of the assault as detailed in the previous evidence). Mr. Brooke Stated that there was an evident conspiracy against him. You gave him a good twenty minutes to apologize. I told you that until you had cleared your character of these foul aspersions you were not fit to associate with gentlemen. By Mr. Garrick .- I am a justice of the peace, I did not expect a breach of the peace. I saw the defendant in a threatening attitude towards the complainant. I thought that the disturbance was over, and that the defendant would leave the room on the recommendation of Mr. Moorhouse. I heard Mr. Moorhouse tell Mr. Brooke that if he had aspersed his character as he had done the defendant's, he would have wrung his neck off his shoulders. I was somewhat excited at the time ; we were all so more or less. The defendant was in the company of my son. I knew that my son was going out with him for the purpose of getting an explanation from Mr. Brooke. I swear that my presence at Birdsey's was entirely accidental. I had not the slightest idea that any assault was contemplated. Mr. Moorhouse here stated that his presence at Birdsey's was also quite accidental. He was in the habit of having his luncheon there every day. Mr. D. Innes was called by the defendant, and corroborated the evidence of the previous witnesses. He did not know if the complainant was severely hurt or not. He should not have liked to have suffered the thrashing himself. . Mr. T. Hetherington was the next witness. His evidence tended to confirm the testimony already adM. Ollivier was calle3 by the defendant, and stated: I know both you and Mr. Brooke. I went as your friend to Birdsey's, as you said that your character had been grossly libelled, and you were anxious to have an explanation from the person who had done so. You asked the complainant to come with you. We went to Birdsey's private bar (The witness corroborated the previous testimony with regard to the alternatives offered by the defendant, and the facts of the assault.) " When you had thrashed the complainant he stood looking as if he could not help it." I' was in the shop when the defendant told Mr. Brooke's assistant to get a plaister ready, as he had struck him with a whip, and he might require some. Thp case being closed, the defendant addressed the Court to the follow, 'g pi^ect^—

May it please the 1 ' -I stand before you, this day, in a most unsati. *y portion, both as regards myself and as reg V the Bench. I received

the summons at so late an hour flit I was preclude from collecting that further MHhce which wou have served to vindicate mypJ(rin a more manner than I have been eaUV! to existing circumstances. When I tWi Australia, suffeng from pecuniary embarrassments—for lam "J™ ashamed to confess that I did so—l went to Otag . I had lost almost my all; my good name was aimosi all that was left to me. A foul scandal followed me there; a paragraph, imputing thd vilest conduct to me, appeared in the Otago Daily Times. I wrote to the proprietors of that journal, intimating lnte ."" tion of proceeding against them for libel. The circumstances were strictly investigated. Convinced of their error, the proprietors made me the most ample apology, and inserted a leading article, contradicting what they had incautiously inserted, ana sending me a cheque for £500, which I refused to accept. lam aware that this has no bearing upon the subject now before the court; but I quote it to show how jealously I guard my reputation. I do not deny that I whipped Mr. Brooke: I openly avow that 1 did so; but I assert that I have suffered a grievous wrong at his hands, and that the provocation was very great. He propagated a rumour, attributing the most infamous conduct to me—conduct which, had I been guilty of it, would for ever have excluded me from the society, not only of gentlemen, but of all my fellow-beings. My past career is known to many; I possess letters from the highest civil and legal authorities in Australia, which exonerate me completely from the charges which have J been brought against me in other places, and repeated in Christchurch by Mr. Brooke. I heard that these slanders were in circulation, and I determined to trace the originator of them. I resolved not to rest until 1 did so, and I traced them through eight persons, until they were finally brought home to the complainant. I consulted Mr. Moorhouse, who, besides being my legal adviser and that of the firm with which*l am at present connected, is my oldest friend in Canterbury, and who has manfully stood by me. I also consulted Mr. Ollivier, who is, next to Mr. Moorhouse, the gentleman with whom I have been the longest acquainted in Canterbury. Had these charges been suffered to remain uncontradicted, had I allowed them to circulate without an emphatic denial of them on my part, they would have been fraught with the most terrible consequences, not only to myself, but to my family. One thing lam most anxious to impress upon your minds. A report has got abroad that Messrs. Moorhouse and Ollivier knew of my intention to obtain satisfaction in some way from Mr. Brooke ; in other words, that they were parties to the transaction. This I positively deny ; they knew nothing whatever of the affair previously to our meeting at Birdsey's, which we did accidentally. I leave the matter with confidence in your hands, fully satisfied that your decision will be in accordance with the evidence which has been laid before you, and that you will not suffer your judgment to be swayed by any rumours which may have reached you from outside the Court. There was an attempt at applause at the conclusion of the defendant's address, which was instantly checked by the Bench. Mr. Garrick addressed the Bench on behalf of his client. He contended that the case was one of ian aggravated assault, and ought to be sent to the Supreme Court. The defendant, by his own confession, had been guilty of an act of the most outrageous nature; to the violence of the ruffian he had added the bravado of the bully. If any aggravation of the offence could be found, it would be in the impudent line of defence which he had adopted. Capt. Anderson had been described as a gentleman of education, position, and refinement. Possibly he was so, but the perversion of these qualifications only added to his offence and called for a heavier penalty. He had descended from his position as a gentleman, and by his violent conduct had placed himself on a level with any other person brought before the Court on a similar charge, and must be prepared to submit to the penalty which such a person would have to pay under like circumstances. Had any one in a lower grade of society been guilty of such an action as the defendant had he would inevitably have been committed for trial, and he (Mr. G.) could not see how the defendant could possibly claim any exemption from the consequences of his acts. The assault had been both a violent and a cowardly one—a contest between a powerful muscular. man and one his inferior in strength. He should again urge upon the Bench that the case was one for the cognizance of the Supreme Court. . The Court was cleared, in order that the Bench might consult upon the case. On the re-admission of the public, the Resident Magistrate said that the Bench saw no reason for dealing with this case otherwise than as one of common assault. They would not send the case for trial, but deal with it summarily. It had been proved that defendant had committed a violent assault and a deliberate breach of the peace. The Bench regretted that a person of the position and education of the defendant should have attempted to take the law into his own hands when he thought he had a private grievance. The Bench would inflict the highest penalty allowed by law, £5.The fine was paid by a subscription raised on the moment by those assembled to witness the proceedings. The Court was crowded with persons of all ranks, who seemed to take a great interest in the case. .

Breach op the Public House Ordinance.—A case against J. G. Ruddenklau, for neglecting to have the lamp before his door lighted during the prescribed hours, was dismissed with a caution. Breach of the Police Ordinance.—R. Falloon was fined £2 for attempting to remove a cow from the custody of the police, which they were conveying to the pound. I Friday, Feb. 17. * (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) j Stealing from a Dwelling.—John Collins | Varcoe and Henry Wilson were charged with j having committed a robbery at the Mechanics' j Hotel. Inspector Pender stated—From information received, I went to the house where the prisoner j Varcoe was lodging. I had been watching him for some time. Detective M'Elroy was with me in plain clothes. The latter told him who I was. I asked him his name, and he replied John Collins. I told j him to give me a cheque which I knew he had. in his possession; at first he made no reply, but became very confused in his tnanneh He said that he had a cheque, but not with him at that moment. He promised to get it for me. He had found the cheque in an out-building at the Royal Oak. He had given it to his mate to see Mr. Farr, Who had drawn the cheque, and if it was all right to get it cashed. He had been told that it was dangerous for him to cash it, as there was something wrong with it. He had told his mate that it would be well to see a constable about it. I told him I should like to see his mate, and asked him to go with me for that purpose. He said he did not know his mate's name, but that they had been working together. He described his dress and appearance, which exactly corresponded with that of the prisoner Wilson. We could not find Wilson, and we returned to the Royal Oak. M'Elroy went to the hotel, and told me in the presence of Collins that he was in the house. M'Elroy brought him out. I left Varcoe in the care of Sergeant Brown, who was standing near. I told Wilson that he must at once give me up the cheque. He attempted to go away, and shouted to some one near. I took him by the collar, M'Elroy assisting me. He struggled a good deal. I told him to be quiet, as I wanted the cheque. He gave it to me after some parley. I produce the cheque. He said that he had been led into the matter, and became very excited. He apologised for having resisted me, and asked me to see that lie had fair play. He repeated that some one had led him into it. I promised that he should have every assistance, in order to establish his innocence. He said that he could not say how he became possessed of the cheque; he was in liquor when he took it. He afterwards said that he was sure that he got it from a man named Bill, with whom he was acquainted on a station; he had given cash for it. He saw Varcoe, and he said that he was the man he had been looking for, and to whom he had given the cheque. Wilson became very excited, and said to Varcoe—" What is that you have got mt> into?" He abused Varcoe at the same time, for getting him into trouble. Varcoe tried to pacify him, telling him that he had better keep quiet. Wilson got still more excited, and said that there was a man inside who had seen Varcoe give him the cheque. I went inside the hotel, to see the man in question. Wilson called a man out, and we all went into a small room behind the bar. The man (who was nick-named Jem)was asked by Wilson if he did not remember Bill giving him the cheque that morning, adding that he had got into trouble about it. Jem declined to make any answer, although Wilson repeated the question several times; he was slightly intoxicated at the time. I brought both the prisoners to the watch-house. Varcoe gave the name of Collins, but ultimately confessed that his name was Varcoe. The cheque is similar to one stolen from the Mechanics' Hotel; a robbery was committed there on January 31st. When I spoke to the prisoner Varcoe, I told him to say nothing wmcn might criminate him. Elizabeth Fuchs : I am 1 H ie wife of Joseph Fuchs, the landlord of the Mechanics' Hotel. On the evening of January I went to the bar in order to put some money w cash-box; I found it was gone. This was near t p.m. I last saw it on a shelf in the bar, betwee

some bottles, about 10 p.m. In the cash box there were a £20 note, about four or five single notes, a sovereign in gold, a cheque for £5 14a—the cheque was signed by King. There was another cheque for £3, signed by Farr. Ido not know in whose favour it was drawn. I changed it for Miss Anderson, who lives near to us. The cheque was on the bank of New Zealand. I identify the cheque produced. There were also a silver chain with key, and a gilt one in the box, as well as an 1.0. U. for £11, and a few papers. The person who took the box could have reached it by standing on the bar, or by leaning over it. Mary Anderson : I am the daughter of Mr. Anderson, of Colombo street. In the afternoon of January 31st I took a cheque for £3 to Mrs. Fuchs. I identify the cheque. I have not the least doubt about it. I saw Mrs. Fuchs put it in the cash-box. I got it from Mrs. Farr the same day. The cheque was numbered No. 10. Mrs. Farr called the next day and told me the number. Christopher Swinbourne; lam the landlord of the Royal Oak. lam in partnership with another person. Last Tuesday I had a conversation with Varcoe about the cheque; he called me on one side from the bar, and told me that he had found a cheque, at the same time asking me to see if it was a good one. The cheque now produced is the one he showed me. I told him that I thought it was a good one. He asked me to change it. I refused to do so, as he said that he had found it, and advised him not to attempt it either. He said that he had found it under the roof of our closet. He asked my advice respecting it. I advised him to keep it to see if any reward would be offered for it, or if any one had lost it. I told him that it was dangerous to cash cheques accidentally found. At his request I kept it for him until the next morning, when I gave it to him back, with his pocket-book. I told him that Mr. Fuchs had lost some cheques, a list of which I had. I looked at the list, but did not find a cheque for £3 in the list, pn the same day. but before the cheque was presented, he gave me £11 to take care of for him. I have frequently seen the prisoners together at my place. Thomas Arnold :lam a labourer, living at the Mechanics' Hotel. I know the prisoners by sight. I saw them on Monday night last at the theatre. I saw them yesterday in company with a mate of mine, who told me that they had recently returned from shearing. I left, and the prisoners followed me. Varcoe said" to me, " You are pretty well known here ; I have found a cheque—where can I get it cashed ?" I replied that it might be done at the Mechanics' Hotel, where I was stopping. He made no reply, but produced a cheque. The one in Court is like it, but I cannot swear positively. They left me then, laying that they would see me again. Wilson was present during the whole conversation. [The prisoner Varcoe : You said that you thought the cheque was a trick to take some one.] [By the prisoner Wilson : You did not speak to me about false cheques.] Mary Anne Farr: I know the cheque produced. I gave it to Miss Anderson. lam certain that it is the same. Ido not know if I gave it away on the same day as. that on which it is dated. The deposition were read over, and the prisoners were asked if they wished to call any witnesses. Varcoe called James Spalding, who stated, in answer to him : I am a labourer, living in Christchurch, at the temperance Hotel. Yesterday, you told me that you had found a cheque rolled up in a piece of paper in a closet. You asked myself and a man named Tom Arnold to change it; we both refused. I did not see you give it toWilson. By the Inspector. Wilson told me yesterday that he had got the cheque from Varcoe. The prisoners were asked in the customary form, and with the usual caution, if they wished to make any statement. Varcoe stated that, on the 13th January, he and three other men came into Christchurch from the Locknivar station. He saw a piece of paper tightly rolled up in another piece, under the roof of the closet at the Royal Oak. He opened it, and found a cheque. (He here repeated the facts of his conversation with the witness Swinbourne, as mentioned by the latter.) In the afternoon of the next day, he showed the cheque to Wilson. The latter offered to go to Mr Farr with it, and also to inform $ constable of the, matter. He (Varcoe) gave it to him, and heard nothing more of it until he saw M'Elroy in company with Inspector Pender. The prisoner Wilson, said that he had taken the note from Varcoe, but could not find Mr. Farr's house. He met a volunteer, who told him that the cheque was right enough, as he knew the handwriting of. the gentleman who had drawn it. He kept the cheque until the morning, in order to see if he could find Mr. Farr. The Resident Magistrate observed that-theyi must account for having the cheque in their possession, and that they would therefore be committed for trial.

Drunk and Incapable. — Robert Taylor was charged with having been drunk and incapable. There was another information against the prisoner, namely, that of having used obscene language. He was dismissed with a caution as regards the first charge; the second was withdrawn. LYTTELTON.—Thursday, Feb. 16, 1865. (Before W. Donald, Esq., R.M.) Cattle Trespass.—J. Hillingworth was fined 5s and costs for, allowing cattle belonging to him to wander at large in the town. Assault. —A person named Cord was fined 20s and costs, for committing an assault on Thos. W. Anderson. Evidence for the defendant proved that the accused received great provacation. The Bench evidently took this view of the matter, and inflicted a medium penalty for a breach of the law. Friday, Feb. 17. Using Obscene Language.—W. Burns, licensed waterman, was charged with this offence by Captain Wheeler, of the Phoebe. Accused was plying for hire alongside the steamer on Thursday, when the offence was committed. It was proved that the carpenter of the vessel used some aggravating language to accused, which was urged in extenuation. Fined £1 and 5s costs.