THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 8774, 15 March 1892, Page 2

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before Messrs G. P. Farquhar and G. Fenwick, Justices.)

Drunkenness.— A first offender was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment.

Obscene Language. Mary M'llroy, charged with this offence at Caversham on the 9th inst., pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr W. Macgregor. —The charge was supported by Constable Power, who said that at 1.15 p.m. on the day referred to bis attention was called to a disturbance in a right of-way off David street, and on reaching the locality he heard defendant use the language complained of towards a neighbor. Witness was in David street when be heard the offensive words spoken, Defendant was under the influence of liquor at the time.— George Penson, who lives in the same street, said that be sent for the constable in consequence of Mrs M'llroy making a row and using a lot of dirty talk.—Mrs Penson, wife of last witness, said that defendant screamed out the bad language and continued doing so for a quarter] of an hour—ten minutes before and five minutes after the constable arrived.—Mr Macgregor submitted that the case was not proved. Accused was charged with using indecent language. The language set forth, even if it was used, was not indecent. It might be abusive language, but it was not indecent in any sense of the word, and certainly not obscene within the meaning of this penal Act, He would also submit that there was no evidence that the language was used within the hearing of persons passing along a public place. The Bench said they had little doubt that the language complained of was used, but they hoped this would be an end of this behaviour. Defendant would be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon.—Sergeant-major Bavin : This is the second time she has been brought up. She was up in December last,—Mr Fenwick: It is a pity the Bench bad not that information before.—Sergeant-major Bevin: I could have told your Worships about it if I had been asked.

Vagrancy. —William Holst, charged with this offence, did not appear, and a warrant for bis apprehension was ordered to be issued. The By-laws — John Saunders was fined Is and costs for hawking without a license, Henry Qore was charged with plying for hire elsewhere than on an appointed stand. —lnspector Morrison asked for a remand till Friday, as his witnesses were not ready, —Mr W. Macgregor said that he had no objection personally, but Mr Gore had his witnesses in attendance, and waa anxious that the case, which was a trifling one, should go on at once.—Mr Farquhar (Mr Fenwick having retired) said that it would be a hardship to defendant to adjourn under the circumstances, The case would be dismissed. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M ) Affiliation. —The rehearing of the case of Margaret Topping v. George M Beath was continued, Mr Hanlon appearing for com - plaiaant, and Mr Macdonald for defendant. Mr Hanlon called Thomas H. Hammond, farmer, who said that on May 1 of last year he drove into town from Merton with complainant and another person. To Mr Macdonald : He fixed the date by a deposit receipt produced, He had never driven into town before with Miss Topping.—Mr Hanlon explained that his other witness had not turned up,—His Worship intimated that he would give his decision at 2 p.m. At the appointed hour His Worship gave judgment as follows :—The evidence at this rehearing has weakened the defendant’s ease and strengthened the complainant’s. At the hearing I attached considerable importance to the evidence of Mrs M*William, because she appeared to be an independent witness, and she spoke with great confidence of a clear recollection of the matter she was questioned about; and as there were but two adults staying in her house on Christmas Eve the presence or absence of one of them for a time would be more likely to be remembered than in a house where several were living. I could only udge then upon the evidence before me, At this bearing her evidence has been contradicted on different points by several witnesses, and she has herself said she does not remember clearly whether Bella Topping was at her shop on Christmas Eve or not. An important point in complainant’s case has been supported by fresh evidence. It has been proved that a cheque for L 5 in defendant’s favor was paid at the bank on May 1,1891, in fiveLlnotes. Tbereisalsoevidencethatleaves no doubt that complainant came into Dunedin from Kiltnog on May 1, 1891. That is the day she sail she met defendant near the foot of Pitt street, and told him of her condition, and that be gave her five L,l notes, one of which she afterwards returned to him. Defendant admitted meeting the girl near the foot of JBitt street, but be says it was about the middle of April. Doubtless both refer to the same interview, and it appears that complainant has correctly fixed the date of it aa May 1. Five LI notes exactly desciibes the money complainant swore the defendant handed to her, and, as he always took his wages home, in all probability that is exactly the money be would have had in his pocket when he and the complainant met on that evening as he waa on his way home. It seems to me impossible that the complainant could have known either the amount or description of the money defendant had in his possession unless her account of how she came to know be true. Even if she knew the amount of his wages, and that he was usually paid at the commencement of each month, she could not know he would not take home a cheque or gold, nr part sliver or part notes and part coin, fhat she did know what money he had is clear,' and the only conclusion I can see is that her talc about it is true. The decision I gave on the Bth February, 1892, is reversed. Defendant is adjudged to be the putative father of the child, As to an order for maintenance, the defendant as yet receives only a small salary. The order will be that he shall pay 5s a week, to be paid every four weeks, the first payment of 20s on Tuesday, the 12th April, 1602, and future payments of 20s each every fourth Tuesday thereafter until such child arrives at the age of fourteen years. To be paid to the clerk of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Dunedin. Mr Macdonald: Will your Worship fix the amount of security for appeal. His Worship: I will fix it if there is occasion for it, I suppose L2O will be sufficient Mr Hanlon

—Mr Hanlon: I do not know, your Worship, that it will be sufficient under the circumstances, seeing the number of witnesses we should have to bring before the Court.— Mr Macdonald: Themm named is much more than usual.—Mr Hanlon: But Bit Worship will, I submit, take the circumstances into consideration. The girl is a poor girl.—His Worship fixed the amount at L4O —Mr Macdonald: Your Worship did not find in your judgment, I think, that the cheque was cashed by M'Beath ?—His Worship : There was no actual proof of it, but the presumption was in that way, and the evldonee of Bella Topping still goes in the same direction.