Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.



(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness. —four first offenders were convicted and discharged, and one who had been bailed out last night was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Two of the accused were girls of sixteen years of a«e. The police said that they were very drunk last night, and were commencing to knock about the streets. One belonged to South Dunedin ; the other came from Invercargill.—His Worship, addressing the girls, said : It is a great pity you are too old to be sent to the Industrial School, or some other place of that sort. This being your first offence no punishment will be inflicted, and you will be discharged ; but if you come before this Court again you will be punished—if you come before me I shall give you the heaviest punishment I can. It is a terrible thing for young girls like you to be in such a position. Try to give over this terrible life—it will bring you to utter ruin if you go on as you have commenced. You are discharged. A Fencing Case. The case of the Mornington Tramway Company v. Richard Dickisonwas further adjourned by consent of the parties to the 30th inst. Maintenance. William Wilson Oliver, who did not appear, was chargtd with disobeying an order of the Court requiring him to pay towards the maintenance of hia three children.—Evidence was given by Mrs Oliver, after which His Worship sentenced defendant to a month's imprisonment with hard labor in Wellington Terrace Gaol on each of the three charges, the sentences to run consecutively. Assault.—Frederick GilchrUt was charged with assaulting Henry Dowse on the Bth inst. at North-east Valley. Mr Stewart appeared for complainant?; Mi Macdonald for defendant. —Complainant stated that he was a shoemaker, and had a shop at the North-east Valley. He had known defendant for several years, and he recently gave evidence in the Resident Magistrate's Court in a case that defendant was concerned in. Since then the defendant had been in the habit of accosting him in the street with violent and obscene language. On the Bth inst. he went into witness's shop and challenged him to go outßide and fight. Witness told him he did not waut to have anything to do with a low blackguard like him, and shut the door. Defendant went atvay, but returned shortly, and, going into the shop, called witness a perjurer. Witness said if he did not go away he would give him iu charge. Defendant then spat on hiin, and exclaimed : " You murdered your daughter—she told me on her dying bed that you murdered her." Witness had had the misfortuno to lose a daughter through consumption. He was in bodily fear of defendant, and wished to have hi-n bound over to keep the peace. When sober defendant never molested witness, but when drunk he was very violent towards him. A young man named Allen was near witn ss's shop door when defendant first went there, and defendant said to Allen : "Do you know John Taylor ? He has people about here who won't pay him." He then put his head inside witness's door, and called out "I mean ycu, you !" It was then that defendant challenge! witness to fight. To Mr Macdonald: Defendant did not accuse witness of spreading a report that Gilchrist vma not his real name, nor did he tell him to go home to his kept woman. Witness did not threaten defendant with a hammer—he was too weak to lift a hammer.—Mr Stewart said that the man Allen had been subpoenaed by both sides, and he would call him.—Charles Allen, butcher, stated that he understood defendant to be referring to complainant when ho spoke about people not paying Taylor. Complainant told defendant to go homo to his woman, and also called him an old reprobate. Complainant also picked up something from hia bench and held it up in a threatening manner. Witness did not see defendant spit on complainant or on his window. Defendant was not drunk, but had apparently had some drink. Both defendant and complainant were excited. To Mr Macdonald : Complainant accused defendant of having an alias, and after some words exclaimed " You old whoremonger, go home to your woman." Witness knew that complainant had talked about defendant having an alias—he had told witness himself 80 . —Constable Walker stated that he was sent for by complainant on the day in question, and waa ahown some spittle on the shop window. Defendant was not there at the time, and anyone could have done the spitting.—Alfred Freeman, a youth working in the neighborhood, stated that he heard a row between Lhe parties, but did not know what it waa about.— Defendant stated that he had never accosted complainant iu the street in the manner described by him, and, in fact, had not spoken to him for twelvemonths till on this occasion. He admitted, however, making the reference to complainant as one of tho people who would not pay Taylor. He was not drunk on that day. He did not Bpit at complainant or threaten him. He only asked him what reports he had been spreading. He did not accuse him of murdering hia daughter, and never had done so, Complainant called him an old reprobate and whoremonger, and told him to go home to his woman. He also took up a hammer and threatened witness. To Mr Stewart: Witness's wife went to complainant and asked him to withdraw the summons, but it was not with his consent. — His Worship said there waa no doubt that both parties had used provoking language to each other, but that was not the charge—lt was one of assault, and he could not see that it was proved.—Mr Stewart •. What about the binding over ?—Mr Carew said that he could not bind defendant over unless he was convicted, and as no assault had been proved —the spitting having been contradicted—the case would be dismissed. No costs would, however, be allowed. A Fencing Case.—An application was made by Jane Braid for the boundary line of section 21, Peninsula, to be clearly defined by the Resident Magistrate, owing to the present line being disputed by John Roberteon and George Hutchins. Sir Robert Stout appeared for plaintiff; Mr B. C. Hagaitt for defendants.—The hearing of this partly-heard case was resumed, and was proceeding as we went to press.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY., Issue 7914, 23 May 1889

Word Count

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY. Issue 7914, 23 May 1889

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.