POLICE COUJRT.—Saturday. [Before J. Dilworth, Esq., J.P., and H. Gilfillan, Esq, J.P.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3405, 15 June 1868, Page 5

POLICE COUJRT.—Saturday. [Before J. Dilworth, Esq., J.P., and H. Gilfillan, Esq, J.P.]

DIUTNKENNKS. — John McClintock, Daniel Lefeire, ami a native woman Darned M*ry ano were punished in the usual manner for this offence. The native, having been several times before convicted, was sentence I to seven days' additional imprison ment. Kiotous Conduct on Board >sip. — Charles Smith an articled seaman on bo«rd the brig 'Dart,' was charge.! by his captaiu with insubordination, contrary t>fche provisions of the Merchant teamen's Act. Defendant was also charged with being absent from his ship without leave, aud this latter charge was first proceeded with. — Joseph R. Soapleborn, master of the brig ' Dart,' deposed that the night before the defendant had «oue on shore without leave, and w»i not in a fit state in the morning t ■ go on with the ship's duty. Produced the logbook, in which an entry had been made recording the fact. Witness spoke to him about his conduct, when he replied that he would go on shore when he pleased. Witness said he did not care to come to Court, but, if he wished the business of the ship carried no, he must do so, or the other men would be following the defendant's example. It was the rule on board his vessel to hare coffee ready at half-past 5 in the morning, and for the hands to "turn to" at 6 o'clock.— J^mes Davis, chief mute on board the ' Dart,' gave corroborative evidence, and added that, if the hands wanted leave when the captain was on &hore, it was the ruie to apply to the first mate. In the present instance defendant had not done so, but had gone on shore without a*king anybody's leave. — Defendant said he had no witnesses ; the second mate, who could have spoken for him, was nob in Court. — The Bench remarked that, if men were allowed to go ou <-h >re and do ai they liked without asking the ship 1 * ufficer, it would have a Very b*d effect. The case wm clearly proved, bnt, before coming to a decision upon it, they would hear the other c-se. — James Davis, chief mate, deputed that the coff c was not ready as usual that morning; at half-pa-t 5 o'clock, and thne was some grumbling about ir. De eodant s*i<isomething to witness, who teld him to mind hiß own business. Defendant then used threatening language, saying he would smash witness's face in. After some furthar altercation, the captain interfered, when defendant was Very impudent to him, refusing to take off his cap in the cabin and malting a m>i*e over hit wort. Ultimately a constable was sent for, aud defendant given into custody. Defendant had be^n on board about four we-ks, daring which time he had baen in the habit of using very foul langua^v. — By defendant : Never heard the captain say " I'll knock your head off," nor make use of any such expre-aion. — Defendant (vehemently) : Oh, man I how can you swear that? I'll ask you no more questions. — Captain rtcaplehorn deposed that defendant's conduct was very riotous that morning, both towards himself and the mate. He threatened to smash the mate's head in, and told witness, when he interfered, to '"hold his jaw," adding that he "ought to be sent to Tmtiri, like that other ," and more to the same effect. He then went into his (witness's) cabin, and lay down on the table, with his cap ' on. W ltness ordered him to take it off, but be refused, «o he (witness) took it off for him and threw it up the companion way. —In answer to a question from the Bench, Captain Scaplehorn said he did not want the defendant back on board the vessel; he would much rather do without. — Uefendaat said there had been some words on board the ' Dart * that morning, because the coffee was not ready iv time, bat neither his conduct nor hid words were such as hail been represented to the Bench by the captain and mate. When the former told him to take his cap off, he said, u If you don't take it off, I'll take it off for y<>u, and your b— head too."— The Bench considered that both ca»es were clearly proved, and sentenced defendant for the first offence to two months' imprisonment %ith hard labour, acd for the second offence ordered him to pay a fine of 405., or to receive seven days' imprisonment, the seoond sentence to commence at the expiration of the first. The Court then rose.