POLICE COURT.—Saturday. [Before James O'Neill and G. M. Mitford, Esqs., J.P.s.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVI, Issue 3960, 2 May 1870, Page 6

POLICE COURT.— S aturday. [Before James O'Neill and G. M. Mitford, Esqs., J.P.s.]

l>nu>'KENNr,s-i —John Blown, Edward Williams, Luke Shaw, and Christopher Higgins weie each charged with this offence, and -nere fined 5?. and costs ; in default to sufler 24 houis' nnpiisonment. Jcnenuah O'lCeeffe and Hemy Mason, for a second offence of a similar nature, weie fined each 10s. and co'.tg, or 4S hours. James Walder, similaily charged, on bail, did not appear, and hid bml was decLued forfeited. Dr. cmc -\kij Disorderly. — Anne Russell and Sai ah .Russell, eharg d with this offence, being on bail, did not appear, and their bails were declared forfeited. Larceny. — J. Lee and Frederick Gardner were charged by Jamc3 Leggifct with stealing from a case on the Queen-slreet Wharf, on Friday la^t, four bottles of porter, value ss. — Each pii-aoner pleaded guilty. — Mr. Bennett appeared for piisonoia, and pleaded that the Magistrates might be lenient y/ith them, as it wa? such severe weather yes erday that it was scarcely possible to resist taking a bottle of porter. The prisoners were willing to ppy for the whole case, out of which only four bottles weie taken. He then called Frank Niles, who gave both men a very excellent character. — The prisoner* were ordered to pay the value of the property taken. Habitual Drunkard. — j\lary Burke was charged with this offence, and pleaded guilty. Sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Cruelty to a>~ Animal. — Henry Mason was charged with a breach of the Municipal Police Act, 1866, by cruelly beating and llltreating a horse m Wellcsley-street, on the afternoon of Friday last. Mr. Naughton appeared for the prosecution, and called William T. Fe! rar, who deposed : I saw prisoner last evening in Welles! ey-street. I was then going home, and saw a eiov.-d of people round a hor.se which was lying on the footpath with a cai t attached to him. Prisoner vras gomg louud the horse whipping him, and then he went towards his head ami kicked the horse on the nose with Irs foot, and said, "You white-faced , get up." The horse could not get up, as oue of the J shafts of the cart was upon his leg. Ihe ho-S2 had to be unharnessed before he got up. I went and informed a constable of what I saw. — By prisoner : I Should say the horse could not get up without being first unharnessed. He tried several time?, and failed. — Mr. Naughton thought the public were indebted to Mr. Ferrar tor the manner in which lie had come forward and aided the authorities in suppressing such piactices. — Sentenced to pay a fine" of 40s. and costs, or 4S hours' imprisonment. Wife Desertion. — Charles Sanderson again appeared to answer the charge of having deserted his wife, Catherine Frances Sanderson, and left her without sufficient support. — Mr. Hesketh for the complainant, and Mr, Brookfield for the defence. — Joseph Cunningham said : I am clerk in the Police court. I was so in June last. I know the complainant and defendant in this case. Defendant has made an admission to me relative to the position he held to complainant. He has frequently spoken of her to me as his wife. lam aware of his having been previously brought before this Court by complainant. It was for a breach of the Destitute Persons .Relief Ordinance I can produce the charge that was read to him on that occasion. (Charge produced ) On the occasion referred to I read tha charge to him ; it is similar to the present charge. It was first set down for hearing on the 21st i of June, 1869, and was then postponed to the 29bh June. On that occasion he appeared personally. The amount sought to be recovered on that occasion was £3(5 10s. The arrangement agreed to was that the amount unsettled should be paid up to Saturday, the 26th June last ; and it was further agreed that he should pay 20*. per week to complainant in future. Those are the words (reading from the Deposition Book). On that occasion defendant appeared him self, and likewise by his counsel, Mr. Hesketh. That arrangement was come to in open Court. (The former charge against defendant wag then read. ) After that occasion I remember of another proceeding between comp'ainant and defendant. It was on the 28th October, 1569. Defendant was chai'ged with allowing a sum of 20s. per week to liein arrear to complainant for a period less than 13 weeks. I saw the defendant on that occasion. He confessed judgment to that charge on the 28th October.— Mr. Brookfield I declined to cross-examine the witness — Mr. | Hesketh called the defendant to go into the witness box, but Mr. BrookfitH objected, on the ground that it was a criminal proceeding.—Mr. Hesketh submitted that this was not a criminal proceeding, but a civil one. At home, a man deserting his" wife wa* looked upon as a vagrant, and punished j s a vagrant. He would read fr.. m Stone's Justics'sManualto show thateventhere, when i b i aaa U treated as » j>pgu e yd yt&tytnd,

the 'wife can bo called to give evidence 1 against her husband. If the Bench made an oiilcr in the present case that defendant i should pay a certain &urn weekly, if defen- i dant did not choose to do so, the Magistrates ] had no power to impnson him ; which was a true test that these proceedings were not of a criminal nature. The Ordinance under which the information was laid gave them no j}o\\ er to imprison, but only the 2 >o wer to impose a tine for the non-ppyment of the orcl^r made, and iosae a distress warrant, as in any other civil proceeding, but limited the amount to ai rears of 13 weeks, which gave an acquittance of the whole extra amount of arrears. — Mr Brookfield held that these proceedings wore of a criminal nature. lie would refer" the Brmch to the 4th clause of the Ordhriuce under which the information was hud, which piovided that all fines w ere to be recovered in a summary manner. This, then, united this Ordinance with the Summary Proceedings Ordinance, which, was in foice . i the time of passing the Destitute Persons Reh?f Ordinance, raid Mas still in torce within the colony Thin they had it, by Mr. Hesketh's own showing, that this case was clearly a criminal proceeding. — After so^o further argument, lac Magisti ates held the proceedings to be of a criminal character. — Mr. Hcsketh. then called Mary Clifford, who said : 1 live in Queen-street, and know both defendant and complainant. Complainant livea with me in Queen-street, and has d'>ne so for six years. I have seen defendant o[len about the house, and lie has given me money for the complainant. The money he gave me I was to give to complainant, who boards and lodges "with me at so much a week. I have not been regularly paid. Defendant paid me once £11 for complainant's board. Defendant Las told me that complainant is his wife, and he told me to tell her not to go up to his (de ■ fendant's) house. The public at large know i that she is his wife. i have always looked I upon them a& liusban.il and wife, and ti eatod them as such. Defendant never denied complainant being his wife when I applied lo him for suppoit to her — Peter Clifford: I am the husband of previous witness, and know complainant and defendant. She has a husband— that's him (pointing to defendant) Complainant live*, rvt oui house, iShe lias not paid for her boaid regnlaily 1 have asked defendant for support for her. He never denied giving- her support, but made excuses of inability ; but always termed her his wife. — James Burtt, merchant, : I |have known both parties for some yeai s prior to 1855. 1 have seen thorn often together. I became acquainted with them by receiving remittances from eomplauiant'srelatives prior to 1833. T believe defendant reueh edsome of the&e remittances. J have no reason to doubt their being husband and -wife. I believe them lo be so, both from their acts and conduct to eaoii other. l 7 i cm the time Ifn st knew them I never had any xeason to doubt their being husband ,md wife. Defendant came to me sometimes, and asked if those lemittances had come to Mr-. Sandei son. — By Mr. Bi ookficld : i cannoi, nay whether tLe remittances* cr.me to complainant orto defendant's mother. I do not lemeinber the initials given to Airs. Samlei sou. — By Mr. Hesketh: 1 never recollect giving defendant's mother a remittance. — JR. \V Wynn, solicitor : I have acted assolicitoi for complainant. The case m which it was, was similar to the present proceedings. I saw defendant on more than one occasion. I have had com ersation with defendant, who spoke of complainant as his wif 3. He has done so on moic than one occasion — Rev. David Jonos : 1 am a clergyman of the Church of England. T have knovin complainant and defendant since the latter part of 183 G. I Mas intioduced to eourpl 'inant by the defendant as "Mid. Chailes Sniderpon." T remember that he intioduced her to me « Mis, Ohailes Sandei son, beca'se his mother was pvesent at the time Defendant was at that time a chmchwiuden of >St. Matthew's Church, of which I wng pastor Tbey were membeis of iay congregation fT SGvei.il yeai". I was m the habit of visiting them, and they me. They have on aH occasions passed before me as husband and w lfo without question. Since T knew them they lived in the same house as husband and wife — -Joseph Brown, piofe&sor of miibic, said : I have known defendant and complainant for upwards of fifteen years. I mts introduced lo compla'nant by defendant at his house, as hiq "wife, Mi i. Sandeison." During the above pono'l T have had many opportunities of knowing both paj ties. I always visited them, and they visited us, as husband and wire. (So far na I know they havo pi ways livod as husl)and and wife. I have had a special reason to believe they are husband and wife. From constant conversation? mid other matters I have a positive belief they are husband and wife. I took part m certain proceoMngd between them v-iiich fell through. One son was born to them while they were living as husband and wife. I never heard defendatit dispute the legitimacy of that son. The boy lived witli ijie for several year?, and T have no reason to suppose that defendant ever tieated him in anyway other than as his legitimate son.- — J". A. Barber, Cusi-om-bouse agent : T have known both complainant and defendant for about thirteen years. They always behaved to each other as husband and wife, mkl were always treated so by our | family. 1 never had the slightest reason to doubt their being husband and Avife — Mr. Hcsketh stated that defendant had got notice topioducc the main age certificate between complainant and defendant, and called upon Mr. BrookfleU! to produce it, which he declined. — William Gai land W con, clerk in the office of Hesketh and Richmond, proved the service of the "notice to pioduce" upon Mr. Biookiield and • defendant yesterday. — " Notice" read by the clerk of the Court, which went to imply that defendant and complainant had been married together at th'j Camberwcll Church, near London, by the Rev. C Hyde, on the 16th September, 18-16, complainant's nuu'den name bring Catherine Frances Russell ; when Mr. Ilesketh demanded the production of the marriage certificate, to which demand Mr. Brookfield replied he had no certificate. Mr. Hesketh asked that complainant might be again put into the witnessbox to give evidence of the contents of that certificate, which was objected to by Mr. firookfield ; when Mr. O'Neill said that, from ■what had been proved to-day, there was no doubt now on tlie Magistrates' minds that complainant was defendant's wife. — Mr. Brookfield held that the information ought to be dismissed on three grounds — first, the information is bad, as being laid by the complainant herself ; second, there is no cvi dence before the Court to show that defendant had deported complainant ; and third, there was no evidence to 'how but that defendant was at this present time supporting complainant. — Mr. O'JSTeiU said that his own opinion and tl'at of his brother Magistrate was that sufiicient evidence had been adduced to show that defendant was complainant's husband, and also that he had deserted her without leaving her sufficient support. They thci ef ore imposed a fine of £5 and costs (£7 33s ), and made an order that defendant pay the sum of 20s. per week to complainant from to-day. — Mr. Brookfield gave notice oi appeal on the double ground t.hab the judgment was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court ; and that the order to pay 20s. and costs was against the evidence adduced.

Mabavilla Cocoa. — For Breakfast. — The Globe says, "Various- importers and manufacturers have attempted to attain a reputation for their prepared Cocoas, but we doubt whether any thorough success had been achieved until Messrs. Taylor Brothers discovei'ed the extraordinary qualities of ' Maravilla' Cocoa. Adapting their perfect system of preparation to this finest of all species of the Theobroma, they have produced an article "which supersedes every other Cocoa in the market. Entire solubility, a delicate aroma, and a rare concentration of t ie purest elements of nutrition, distinguish ohe Maravilla Cocoa above all others. For homoeopaths and invalids we could not recommend a more agreeable or valuable beverage." Sold in packets only by all Grocers, of also may be had Taylor Brothers' Original Homoeopathic Cocoa Soluble Chocolate. Steam Mills,