MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1511, 6 August 1912, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) THE BAILIFF. WAS E, CORKILL ASSAULTED? At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Alexander Johnston pleaded not guilty to a charge of "his having assaulted .Robert Corkill, a bailiff. Mr. A. Fair appeared for the com plumant, nrnl.Jlr. 1\ W. Jackson for the defendant. Corkill stated that he had gone to defendant's liouso with a warrant to distrain for .£4 rent, and that defendant had refused him entry, and.had assaulted him. .. Defendant denied the assault, and said that Corkill had tried the doors without knocking. Johnston's statements were corroborated by,,his wife and sister. Johnston also' explained that he had refused to pay tho rent until the house was repaired. His Worship said that he was of -opinion that a. mild assault had ticen committed, He'ordered defendant to pay solicitor's fee (£1 Is.). ___ WHO PUBLISHED THE CARD? Jtr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., delivered judgment in the ease in which William Scott and Henry Martindale were charged with having, on or about July 1, 1912, published a document which contained a notification as to betting on horse, races to bo run at Trenthnm on July 17. At the hearing of the ease, Alfred Ward, a police detective, stationed in Dunedin, was called by tho prosecution. Ho stated that on July 4 last lie had received bj post an envelope containing one betting card and . two betting charts. Tho envelope bore the Wellington postmark oi July 1. Witness had not the faintest idea from whom ho had received the card, but from its nppenvunco he thought that tho envelope had been originally addressed to another person, and afterwards readdressed to him. A piece of paper had been gumnied over tho placn where the first address was. Sir John Findlay, defendants' counsel, submitted that tho case should bo dismissed, because, he said, "publication" had not been established. If this envelope had been sent by Scott and Martindale to someone, and that person sent it on to a police officer, that was not publication. The. police said it was. Publication to whom? To a. police officer, tho prosecution said. Who published it to the police officer? Not tho defendants. In deciding the case his Worship remarked that tho prosecution was bound to provo "publication," and that lie, was not prepared to say that this had neon done. He therefore dismissed the information. OTHER CASES. Charles Bcthell was fined .£3 for having failed to' provide proper and sufficient food and shelter for a horse. A prohibition order was made against Mary Lee. . Clara Amelia M'Cntcheon was granted separation, guardianship, and maintenance orders against her husband, William Stewart M'Cutcheon. Defendant was ordered to pay £1 per week towards tin support of his wife and two children. Vine Blacklidge was granted guardianship and maintenance orders against her husband, Frederick Blacklidge. He was ordered to pay ,£1 per week towards the support of,his wife and children. For insobriety, Thomas O'Brien, Gustav Petersen, Owen M'Aleary, and Michael Gregory were each fined .£l. For breaches of prohibition orders, Frederick Herbert Crampton was fined .£3 Richard Thomas Driscoll ill, Lavinis Beard 4:2, and Henry Richard Balding <£'l Samuel Michael was fined ,£1- on s charge of his having stolen two bottles ol oysters, valued at 25., from Alfred Rigg Frederick Blacklidge was sentenced tc one month's imprisonment for having dis obeyed a maintenance, order, which had been mado by the Court.