THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 8407, 7 January 1891, Page 3

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. (Before Messrs H. Gourley and John Wright, Justices) ‘Now Zealand Tablet’ Company v. James Cook (Gore).— Claim, L7lßs, for goods supplied. Mr Gallaway appeared for (he plaintiff company, for whom judgment was given by default for the amount canned (less L2 paid on account), with costs. Kearns and bona v. John Tennant (Kutnara). —Claim, Ll2 13s 6d, fer goods supplied. Dr Fitchett appeared for the plaintiffs, for whom judgment was given by default, with costs. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs J. Rimer, W. Waidrop, and W. Wright, J.P.s.) Druskknnb- s —For this offence first offender, who did not appear, was fined 5.’, or twenty-four hours in gaol.— Kate Finch was charged with drunkenness and with breaking three pam-s of glass, valued at Is 6d, the property of Jehu Gommersell. — Accused having pleaded guilty to bo hj charges, Sergeant O’Neill stated that in the last case this woman, who was of the unfortunate class, when the worse of drink, went to the house of a man named Jobu Gonunorsell and smashed his window,“la the first ca-e a fine of 10s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment, was imposed; and in the second, 20s or one week. Petti Theft- - A little lad tamed Samuel Snell was charged with stealing a tin whittle of the value of one penny from the shop of Jan Qiin. —Sergeant Mulville said tho facts were that prosecutor, who kept a shop In Princes street, was standing Inside his window when he saw the lad take the whistle and hide it away.— The boy, whose age was eltven years, stattd that he bought the whistle and paid for it. There being no appearance of prosecutor, and accused’s father appearing and stating that he gave his son money to bay the whistle, and that on searching him he found the money gone and nothing to indicate that it had been used in any way except in the purchase of the whistle, the Bench dismissed the case without p.ejiviice to the boy. . , Vagrancy. —John Mackintosh was charged with havirg insufficient lawful means of support. A plea of not guilty having been recorded, Sergeant Geerin gave evidence, stating that he had not known accused to do any work. C; m plaints had been made about the disturbance made by accused. Mrs Ball and Mrs Livingstone, both livieg close to the house occupied by tho accu-ed and a woman who was said to bear him company, gave evidence to the effect that there had b en disturbances at the accused's place—sing'ng dancing, swearing—and to sleep had been a difficult matter. One of the witnes-eshad never seen him do any work. —Accused made a lengthy statement, saying that he had been making B.< a day —A sentence of fourteen days’ imprisonment w.*s rasped. Jane Rivers was charged with having insufficient lawful means of support. Accused pleaded not guilty.—Sergeant Geerin stated that accused lived in company with the last accused in Maitland street, and was a very low character. He had had complaints made to him on several occasions coacernirg the woman’s character and that of her associates. The accused had been cautioned, but had taken no heed of warnings.—This witness was subjected to a very hot cross-examination by the accu-ed, who defied him to prove that she h»d “unconduoted ” herself, and told him that he was telling infernal lies.— Constable Kutledge gave corroborative evidence —Accused asked for an adjournment until Saturday, to give her an opportunity of proving her “innocence Inspector Mooie read a long li-fc of previous convictions against the accused. Ihe accused was called on to give evidence, bat made a rambling statement having little semblance to a defence. The gist of her statement was that she wa» not an annoyance to the neighboihood in which she lived.—Accused was cent. to gaol for one mouth, to be kept to hard labor. Odscsne Language Geonjc Smith pleaded guilty to a charge of, on the 6th January, using obscene language on the Bay View road, St. Kllda.—Coastab’e Daley and Mrs Barrett gave evidence.—Accused did not ask either of the witnesses any questiors, remarking that he did not remember anything of the afiair.—After coiuideratmn, the Bench admonished the accused and dismissed tbe case. Trespassing on a Hailway.— Rohrt Cook Moore was charged with, cn the 26ch December, trespassing on the railway line between Andeiscn Bay roa-i and the main road at Kensngrim.—Accused pleaded guilty, and said that at the time he did not know he was trespassing. He had been in the colony for forty years, and had never before been ia a position similar to his present —The Bench were of opinion that a emti n would be sufficient, and the defendant would therefore be issed. Minor Offences —For leaving a horse unattended in George street, Thomas Walker was fined ss, without costs. Henry William Mitchell, for allowing a horse to wander in St. Kllda, was fined Is, without costs. Alleged Assault —Thomas Stewart charged Thomas Mills with assaulting him in Rattray street on the 29:h December.—Mr Hanlon appeared for complainant, and Mr Fraser for defrndant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Hanlon said that tho facts o? the case were these : On the cveniog of the 291h Decemb r, about halfpist t;n, complainant was in the bar of the Britannia Hotel, iu Rattray street, with a man named Ramsay, when they heard a voice in the passage, end immediately afterwards the daughterof Mr Porter, liceoseeof the hotel,cried out that someone was killing her father. Complainant and his friend rushed into the passage, where they saw Mr Porter being draggid cut the doer by the leg by the defendant. Complainant said: “ What are you doing with the old man ? ” This caused defendant to let go his hold of Mr Porter, who then got up. Defendant walked two or three yards down tho street, and then came back and struck complainant a severe blow between the eyes, the result of which was to open up a ga ing wound ou tbe man’s nr sc, which had been stitched up by the doctor. The assault was a most cowardly and dastardly one. The complainant gave evidence, in which he said that de'endant offered him a pound to square the matter. Witness would not agree to the proposal. To Mr Fraser: Witness could not say that Mr Porter ua< d very rough language to defendant. It was the defendant, and not witness, who suggested a settling of the dispute before it went to Court.—Peter Ramsay, Samuel Porter, and Dr Lamb gave evidence for ♦he prosecution. — For the defence Mr Fraser contended that his client had received provocation, and had simply returned a blow. He called the defendant, who corroborated this statement. —The Bench fined defendant 10s and costs (L2 2s).