RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. This Day. (Before Mr. T. A. Mansford, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS.

Evening Post, Volume XVI, Issue 212, 6 September 1878, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. This Day. (Before Mr. T. A. Mansford, R.M.) DRUNKENNESS.

William H. Hume pleaded guilty to being, drunk and incapable for the third time this week. Mr. Mansford warned him that if he were again brought up he would be sent to prison for a long term, as an habitual drunkard. He was fined 205., with the alternative of forty-eigbt hours' imprisonment. KEEPING A DISRBPUTABLB HOUBB. Madame Valentine was charged, on remand, with keeping a disorderly house. Mr. Gordon Allan, who appeared for the defendant, said the nuisance had been abated — in fact, the house was closed, and Madame Valentine was about to leave the town. Sergeant Smith said he knew that Madame Valentine's establishment had been broken up. Under these circumstances the summons was dismissed. . THE CABMEN AND THE TRAMWAY. John Loughlin was charged on an adjourned summons with obstructing the tramway. Mr. Travers appeared for the Tramway Company, and Mr. Gordon Allan for the defendant. Mr. Travers said the object of the prosecution was not to have the defendant punished, but that a repetition of the offence might not take place. For cabmen fo obstruct the tramway, was to endanger the lives of the passen-

gers both on the t! am way and in the cab. Constable Waeland said that on Wednesday evening, the 28th ult., he was on duly in Manners-street. Defendant, with his horse and hansom cab, was on the siding of the tramway, opposite the Imperial Opera House. One engine and car was on the siding, and one on the main line. Defendant refused to moteout of the way, and witness took hold of the horse's head and led it away. Defendant again turned it on the track, and repeated this three times, the third time threatening to " knock the head ; off" any man who again touched his horse. Defendant said he had no fare then, but he obtained one when the performance was over. By Mr Allan : The tram-cars stood for ten or fifteen minutes, waiting for the people to come out of the Theatre. There was not sufficient room for a cab to pass between the tramway siding and the kerb. It was in consequence of a complaint by Mr Jackson, the manager of the tramway, that witness ordered the defendant to move out of tbe way. Dr. Diver stated that when he saw the cab (after the constable had removed it away the first time) it was about the length of a horse and cab away from the rails. He did not think the engine would have come into contact with tbe cab had it moved on, but he could not say this positively. Cross-examined — Did not toll the cabman that he was a J.P , and would have them out of the way. Mr. Allan, addressing the Bench for the defence, said that under the clause wh'ch the company relied upon, there must not only be wilful obstruction, but there must be obstruction of a carriage that had a right to be there. He could not find any plan of the siding as having been approved, and certainly if such a siding had been allowed he was literally astonished, because it would prevent any cabs or carriages from drawing up between tbe line and the theatre. Mr. Travers— My friend forgets that the theatre was put there after the siding. Mr. Allan replied that the theatre was talked of a great deal at the time, and this was another instance of the pre-science of the gentleman on the rieht of Mr. Travers (Mr. T. K. Macdonald). Mr. Allan also urged that the spot in question was not one of the stopping-places authorised. Lawrence M'Govern, cab proprietor, deposed that the engine on the main line was pointing towards Te Aro, and the engine on the siding towards Tborndon. He also spoke as to the position of the cab, to show that there was no obstruction. His Worship observed that there was no dispute as to the position of the cab, but there was great conflict of evidence as to the position of the engines. Mr. Travers said he was just informed that the engine on the siding really was facing toward Thorndon in which case there was no obstruction. Under those circumstances he would withdraw the informations, being satisfied that ther* bad been a misapprehension. Mr Allan submitted that the company should pay the costs. His Worship said it seemed to him extremely doubtful whether the Tramway Company were not more to blame than the cabmen. As far as he could see, if the information was withdrawn it ought to be with costs. Mr. Travers observed that the information was laid by the police. Mr. Allan said he thought it extremely desirable that the relative positions of the Tramway Company and the cabmen should be ascertained. Mr. Travers replied that no one disputed the right of cabmen to draw up opposite a theatre, so long as they conducted themselves properly. With regard to the Tramway Company, he was bound to say that they did not feel themselves justified in drawing up their trams so as to impede the traffic in any way. Mr. Sievwright, who appeared for a cabman named Lawlor, against whom a similar information was laid, urged that the defendant had been put to considerable expense, and that the case being withdrawn, the costs should be paid by the complainants. His Worship then said the police must pay the costs in both cases. Mr. Allan observed that the company ought, in that case, to refund the amount to the police. All the informations, including the charge of assault, were then withdrawn. THE LANDLORD AND THE WAITER. John Brown was charged with wilful damage to 10 tumblers, value 10s, tho property of George Squires, landlord of the Metropolitan Hotel. From the evidence of the complainant it appeared that the prisoner was engaged as waiter, and was in hi* employ about 40 hours. Yesterday he got very drunk, created a great disturbance, and broke the tumblers'. The Magistrate dismissed the case, leaving thb complainant to recover the value of the tumblers by.civil process.