RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 1924, 6 July 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before J. Fultou, Esq., R.M. DRUNKENNESS. . , J. MTnnon was fined 20s or 48hours’ imprisonment ; and James Elliot, 10s or 24 hours, for being drunk. PETTY OFFENCES. The charge against Peter Leith for allowing his chimney to take fire was dismissed with a caution. Robert Keary, for absence from his express u ageon, was fined 10s and eo-ts. John Wilson, for allowing three ccws to wander, was fined os each. Two cabmen, Thomas Hill and Thomas Hughes, were finfd one shilling each, for driving with only one light. Patrick Lee, for a like offence, with aggravation, was fined os. Denis Dunkerly, for leaving his licensed carriage unattended, was lined os and costs. INFORMATIONS BY INSPECTOR NIMON. Mr Wakely, removing the surface of a footpath without permission, dismi-sed. Edward Mc.dove, opening the footpath in St Andrew street without leave (Mr Barnes only having given authority) dismissed. Mr Black, yard in a dirtv state, 2s 6d and costs. Adam Meider, neglecting'to keep his premises clean, 2s 6d and costs. Robert Allen, negligent driving, by which his dray came in contact with a lamp-post, which was in consequence displaced, and the glass broken, was directed to communicate with the gas company. ( The defendant pleaded the condition of the streets, which he described as a bog.) Robert Chapman, was charged with neglecting to provide a drain pipe for carrying off the drainage from houses in George street and King street. The Magistrate asked how the evil was to be remedied ? The Inspector said that was a question, but he should not have allowed the drainage to have been carried on to his section. He was fined 5s and costs. BREACH OF TJHE LICENSING ORDINANCE. Marshall and Copeland were charged by the Commissioner of Police with a breach of the Licensing Ordinance in selling one hhd. of ale. Mr Harris, on behalf of Messrs Marshall and Copeland, said that the defendants had no desire whatever to commit a breach of the existing laws, and they had allowed themselves to ho sued in order' to try the legal question involved. By reference to the 53rd section of the Constitution Act it would be seen that power was given to the General Assembly to make laws for the peace, order, and go al government of New Zealand provided they were not repugnant to the law of England, and it was entitled to legislate upon any subject whatever on which it was lawful for the Provincial Councils to legislate ; in which case any Act of a Provincial. Council wo .Id be null and void. The Ordinance under which they were charged was that of 1305, clau-e 21. On reference to schedule C. it would be seen that a brewer was authorised to sell quantities of not less than five gallons. He mentioned that to show the inconsistency between that Ordinance and the Act of the General Assembly <>f 186 S. By that Act the registration of brewers was expre-sly provided for. and in such a way as to show that I,he Lie using Ordinance of 1865 must be null and void. In the 125 th section of the Act of 1868, it was provided that brewers must be registered by the Collector of Customs if resident within five miles of the Custom House. Such registration was effected. The certificate gave authority to brew and sell in quantities of not less than two gallons. Thus that Act was inconsistent with the Act of 1865. The prescribed penalty was not less, than ten pounds nor more than one hundred pounds. He submitted that it was perfectly clear that an Act of the General Assembly over-role the provisi ns of the Licensing Ordinance of 1865, under the 53rd section of the Constitution Act, which was perfectly clear on the subject. The Commissioner of Police said he had hitherto been under the impression that Messrs Marshall and Copeland had comp ied with the provisions of the Ordinance, until his attention was called to the circumstance, The hearing of the case was adjourned to this day week. ADJOURNED CASE. The Magistrate gave judgment in the case of Catherine Mason, who last week was charged with keeping a disorderly house, and said he did not express any opinion as to whether the City Council was empowered to pass the bye-law under which the information was laid. All he had to do was to administer the law. lie should therefore fine the defendant 15. AFFILIATION. Mary Kilmarten v. Hagan.—Mr Barton said he could not understand how an order could be made for the payment of a certain sum weekly for the maintenance of a child, when an action for damages for an assault was peniinv. Mr Ward would make no comments on the case, he would prove the paternity of the child; and that Hagan w the father He was in a good line of business, and able to pay the full amount claimed. Mary Kilmarton said she had been a servant since Jarvey’s trial. She lived at the Plough Inn, Caversham, where she became acquainted with Hagan. He was always following her. and, in consequence of her intimacy wi hj him, she had the child which she held in her arms.

In cross-examination by Mr Barton, the complainant said she was not a married woman. It had nothing to do with the present action, that the had previously hail a baby by Matthew Black. She had been out with Hagan in the flax at night but with no one e se. She was never out with Dan. She left the hotel six weeks after the transactions complained of. Mr Barton : Is it not true then, the night after you left the hotpi you were out ip the flax with Dan ?

The witness : Oh you horrid man, to say such a thing. Mr Barton : On the Thursday night, when Mr Hagan sent the servant-girl out o make som* t< a, who did she make it for ? The witness: Oh, she made it for him. She was very proud of him. He took liberties with her too ;ho is a blackguard. She had been in Victoria, but never brought up on a similar charge.

Bridget Bennett, sister to the complainant, remembered her living at the Plough Inn. she went to fit a dress on to the complainant at four o'clock in the afternoon, and going into her bedroom adjoining the kitchen found Hagan with her. and her sister scream ing and struggling. She took a pi ker in her hand to defend her sister, but did not strike Hagan. She saw Mrs Buddy, the landlady

ofthe Plough Inn about it, and in consequence “took ill,” and was ill for six weeks.

Mr Barton maintained that the evidence ■was so contradictory, that no order should be made, for it was plain that it was a trumped-up story, and that the a sault complained of in October was most unlikely, when the first familiarity was sworn to take place in September. It was very difficult for a man to disprove a charge of this character, when a story of the sort was affirmed by corroborative evidence. Complainant was dismissed from thejinu on account of her loose conduct, and it would be encouraging vice if an ord r of affiliation were made under such circumstances'.

William Puddy, landlord of the Plough Inn, Caversham road, and Mrs Puddy said they had had to discharge Mary Kilmartin on account of bad conduct in sitting up with the men about the house.

Margaret M‘Lean, servant at the inn, was there during Mary Kilmartins service. She heard nothing of any impropriety with Hagan until Mrs Bennett complained. She had seen him laughing with the complainant, she recollected making tea in the kitchen on the occasion mentioned by the complainant, who told the witness that Hagan bad taken hold of the compla nant and taken her into the room. Had there been any noise she could have heard it while sitting in the dining-room, as the house was a wooden one. Nothing improper was going on while she was present. Kilmartin told her that Hagan had blackened her feet. The complainant must have known the man Dan, of whom they a'l complained on account of his bad language. In reply to the Magistrate, the witness said she did not know of any improper conduct on th part of Mary Kilmartin. The Magistrate said the case was unsatisfactory, and he was surprised the only evidence brought by the complainant was her own sister. There was no evidence of assault, but there was nothing to prove that Hagan w-s not the father of the child. Mr Barton submitted that, as both parents might lie ordered to pay to the .support of a child, he would suggest that either the mother should pay half the cost, of its maintenance, or that a luthp sum should be named to be paid by the defendant in lieu of a weekly payment. ’ The Magistrate made an order for the payment of ten shillings a week, or a lamp sum of fifty pounds, with costs.