THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7470, 14 March 1888, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) 11. Benjam'n v. J. Keogh.—Claim, LlB Is, on a judgment summons. Mr Stanford appeared for the plaintiff.—The cise was dismissed, His Worship holding that ability to pay was not proved.

Same v. A. M'Qill. —Claim, Ll2 Is 6d, on a judgment summons.—Hia Worship held that there was no proof of means to pay since service of the summons, and dismissed the case. Brown, Ewing, and Co. v. S, A. Ferens,— Claim, L 9 Os Od, on a judgment summons.—Mr Macgregor appeared for the plaintiffs, and explained that the defendant, who was a schoolteacher, had promised to pay the amount, but had left for New Plymouth to Fulfil an appointment without keeping her promise. His Worship made an order for the payment of the amount by monthly instalments of L 3 Os 3d each j in default twelve days* imprisonment in New Plymouth prison. T. ©ourley v. A. Forsyth.—Claim, L 4 9s Od, for goods supplied.—Mr Hodge appeared for the plaintiff, for whom judgment was given by default, with costs. A. H. Thomson v. Jessie A. Clark.—ln this case judgment had been given for plaintiff by default for the sum of L 5, the case being heard on Monday last. Mr Sim now appeared for the defendant and applied for a rehearing; Mr Wilkinson, for the plaintiff, opposed.—lt seemed that the plaintiff and b’s wife had been staying for a week with defendant, and that on going away they left a box containing clothing as security for tbeir board. Subsequently plaintiff demanded the box, and defendant refusing to give it up he threw a piece of crumpled paper on the floor. The defendant, according to her evidence, did not recognise this as a summons and threw it outside the gate. The first intimation that she bad that it was a summons was on reading iu the Evening Stab on Monday that judgment had been given against her.—A rehearing for Monday next was granted. J. Gillies v. A. Maxwell.—Claim, L 33 3s fid, under a guarantee for goods supplied to J. E. James, of Wcodhaugh. Mr Meatyard appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Hoskicg for the defendant. —Mr Meatyard stated that early in 1866 James wanted some furniture from the plaintiff, and referred him to Mr Maxwell, insurance agent, as guarantee. The defendant replied that he was willing to become guarantee providing that Mr James paid the interest and a renewal of the bills as they became due. Under this guarantee the goods were given. Mr James became insolvent in January last, and the defendant then declined to pay to plaintiff the balance due. —The defence was that plaintiff had improperly neglected to furnish defendant with any information concerning James’s liability and his omissions to meet the bills due. No notice of James’s indebtedness was given to the defendant till after James had filed a coople of monthsago. Had the plaintiff communicated earlier with the defendant the latter would have been able to pay plaintiff out of moneys he held from time to time belonging to James.—Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs J; Ashcroft and A. Bennie, J.P.s) Damaging Property. —Emma Brown vas charged with breaking three panes of glass in tho Salvation Army’s Rescue Home in Vogel street. Accused pleaded guilty, but said that she was annoyed by the goings-on of the army. —She was further charged with using obscene language at the same time —Accused pleaded not guilty to this charge, which was, however, clearly proved.—The Bench sentenced accused to two months’ imprisonment, with hard labor, on the first charge, and to one month’s on the second charge.

Alleged Indecent Assault.— John Tayhr Rennie was charged on the information of William Gardiner with having, on Monday last, unlawfully and indecently assaulted Mary Ellen Gardintr. Mr Thornton appeared for the prosecutor ; Mr Stuart for accused.—Mr Thornton said that the information was laid under section 5 of the Offences against the Person Act of 1874, by which anyone found guilty of an assault against the person rendered himself liable to a penalty of from three to seven years. Accused arrived in Dunedin some months ago with the “lady doctor,” and when the latter left Dunedin he used the same consulting rooms, in Manse street, as she had used. The prosecutor was employed at the Freezing Works, and his daughter, a girl of seventeen,

was suffering from some debility of the spine. Mr t Gardiner took her to bo attended by the “ lady doctor,'’ and after the latter left Dunedin hlio was attended by accused. On Monday last she went to his rooms’ as usual, and lie made her wait till all the other patients had left; on previous occasions there used to be others about. The girl would detail the assault She ruriiitcJ and cried, and accused then let her •i i. On reaching homo sho was crying, and her parents asked her what was the matter, idle told them, an,d on the following day she and her mother went to accused s rooms, and, on spsak ng to him about tho matter, ho said that he wa i a medical man, and was privileged to do us he liked. As to the technical part of the offence, counsel said he would road tho sections of the Act bearing on tho point. -Mr Stuart raid that was unnecessary, as he would be prepared, if the evidence boro it out, to admit that an indecent assault had boon committed Mary Ellen Gardiner stated that she suffered from an ailment of tho back, and her mother took her to the “lady doctor." Accused was present once when the “lady doctor” treated her. The “ lady doctor ” left Dunedin a little while ago, and witness was then treated by a.'cusod. Ho treated her three times, tho last occasion being on Monday last. On tho Monday previous he examined her back and gave her a box of ointment. She did not take off any of her clothing but the jacket of her dress. Sho was the last patient but one that day. On

Monday last there were no patients waiting. Accused told his attendant that he could go, as tlic r c were no more patients. Accused then stubbed the door, and told witness to sit down on a chair. Ho then committed tho assault complained of. She began to cry, and after a. time he let fcer go, after putting some plaster on her back. She was crying when she got home, and told her mother what had happened. Cross-examined: It was after the assault that witness unfastened her jacket to let accused put tho plaster on. She did not call out or try to open the door when accused assaulted her; she was too frightened. Witness had not paid the “lady doctor any money; sho used to give witness medic.re, but uot money. The doorkeeper locked the street door when ho went away, and accused snihbtd the door leading into the passage or porch. When she left sho went out by this door. She and her mother went to accused on Tuesday, and he said that all he had done was to put his hand on her chest and back, and then put some plaster on her back; also that he had acted as sho had described. Her mother asked why he did that, and he replied that he was a medical man. Ha also said that if they wanted to bring a charge against him they could. He said witness would have to come back in ton days to see if the plaster straps were right. Witness’s mother said that she should not go back without having someone with her.— Ann Gardiner stated that when she and her daughter went to (accused yesterday he took them into the surgery. Sho asked him what

liycrcy ilv IldU |/uv uuuguKu v*» , _ * and treat her as ho had done. He replied that lia was a medical man, and could do as he liked. She (aid that her husband was coming in at two o’clock to see into the matter, on which accused said that she could do what she liked, and could bring a charge against him if she liked.— Cros -examined : Accused told witness that he had put some straps of p’aster on the girl's back, and that she was to come back in nine or ten days’ time to see if they were all right. He said she ought to have an apparatus for her back that would cost LlO or Ll2. Witness said they could not afford that, Accused s porter was there when she went in and also when she went out, but he was not in the surgery all the time they were there. Accused said he had examined the girl by force, as she would not let him by fair means. He himself described what ho had done. She did not do' cribo it herself to accused. —Mr Stuart submitted that this was a distinct contradiction of what the witness had already sworn. —Witness thereupon said that she had described the whole affair to accused, and naked him why he did it.—Mr Smart said he did not want to ask the witness any further questions.—William Gardiner stated that lie took his daughter to Dr Lamb yesterday afternoon to bo examined.—William Lamb, dulyqualified medical practitioner, stated that he had examined the girl. She was in some pain. Her condition nvght suggest that violence had been used, lie could not see any connection bet ween the girl’s ailment and tbe treatment she alleged she hail received. It was not usual, and it was most injudicious, for such a patient to go to a doctor to be examined without having someone with her.—Cross-examined: It was partly owing to doctors being afraid of having cases trumped up against them that it was usual for patients to have someone with them when being examined. The girl was suffering from cumturo of the spine. Ho would not give an opinion as to the cause of tbe girl’s injuries.— Detective Henderson stated that he apprehended accused at 5 p.m. yesterday. On reading over tho avarrant to him accused said: “ I don’t understand it; I’m aurp. iscd at it.”—Mr Stuart said that tho charge was one of a kind that was ca.dly made, but not easily refuted, but be thought that he cjuld satisfy the Bench that the evidence of the girl could _be distinctly contradicted in two or three points by the evidence of tho porter at the consulting rooms. With reference to the mother’s evidence it amounted to this; that after finding her daughter had been assaulted she asked the court to believe that instead of going straight to tho police or to a solicitor she went to the accused, who admitted what they said he had done and justified it on the grounds of his being a medical man. The girl’s story was practically tho same as her mother’s, and the whole thing was evidently a conspiracy and plot to extort money. The porter would swear that he stood at tho door the whole of the time that tho girl was inside, and that accused did not tell him to go away ; also, that he wont into the surgery while tho girl was being treated by accused, and that therefore the door could not have been snibbed ; and also, that the porter did not lock tho door, but waited until tho girl had gone away, and then went away with the accused. Tho whole affair was a deliberate lie, concocted by the girl with the aid of her mother, with a view of extorting money; and if ho (the learned counsel) adduced evidence to show that, he submitted that it would be worse than foolish to send accused for trial.— Albert do Jongh stated that he acted as interpreter to the “lady doctor,” and as doorkeeper at the accused’s consulting roc ms. He had seen the girl Gardiner dozens of times at the rooms. On Monday she was waiting outside the door when ho went there at 10 30 a.ra. She asked him if he was going to lot her in that day ; she had been disappointed several times before. She was not a paying patient, and paying patients were let in first. She was let in that day at about half past two o’clock, and came out in about five minutes. Th’s was because a paying patient called, and witness went in and told the accused s\ In about twenty minutes’ time witness let the girl out again, and he stood outside the door while she was inside, and until she came out again. Ho was standing, as was his habit, with his back against the door. She was not in more than five or six minutes at the most. He could have heard any unusual sound from the room, but did not hear any sound during that time. Accused did not toff ■witness to go, as tKo girl tael said—she must have misunderstood the matter. While she was inside the second time another patient came, and witness knocked at the door to tell the accused. Accused told him to come in, and he did so. The door was not snibbed, and witness went in. Thogirl was sitting on a chair, and the accused was standing near her. She was just unfastening the jacket of her dress. He told the accused there was another patient, but the latter replied; “It’s too late; it’s all over for today, witness saw the girl come out. There were no signs of her having been crying. _ After she was gone, witness went in and straightened up the place, as usual, and then he and the accused went away together. Accused never kept the keys of the place ; witness had kept them for the last five weeks. Cross-examined : Witness did not know the whereabouts of the two patients that called while the girl was there, but neither of them was a Chinaman. He did not know who they were, but he knew that they were paying patients. He knew that from their appearance and behaviour. Re-examined; There is a window over the door, which witness used to open every morning and close when he went away.—The girl, recalled by the Bench, said that it was correct that she was in the accused’s room twice, accused sending her out because another patient came; but the patient was a Chinaman. Accused did not snib tbe door till after she went in tho second time.—Tho Bench said that they quite agreed with Mr Stuart s statement that in cases of this sort considerable care should bo exercised, and, without confirmatory evidence of some kind, they would be slow to allow the case to proceed further. But they thought that tho case was sufficiently strong for them to say that a pnma facie ease had been made out. They considered the mother’s evidence was not of such a nature as to cause them to disbelieve the main statement of the girl; and the case was, in their opinion, strong enough to go to a iurv The accused would be committed for trial!—Mr Thornton asked that if bail bo allowed it be made substantial, as accused was a man who did not reside boro permanently. - The Bench allowed bailaccused in LIOO, and two sureties m LIOO each ; or, alternatively, accused m LIOO and one surety in L2OO.

The vote of censure on the Parkes Government moved by Mr Dibbs has proved abortive, having been defeated by thirty-seven Totes.