CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 12883, 4 August 1906, Page 11

CITY POLICE COURT.

The following concludes our report of yesterday's proceedings before Mr Riddell, S.M. :

Breaches of By-laws.—Sarah Thomas and Isabella Glenn, lor permitting cattle to wai.der, were each find 5s and costs tfs). — Charles Edward George and diaries roster weie prosecuted lor uut having an ousu-uc-tion in Princes street suiiiciently lighted. Mr Brugh appeared for defendant.—Evidence lor the prosecution having been given Mr Brugh said that the deiendants said that they had done everything in connect.on with the lighting oi tne obstruction that tould be do..e. But it would be d.sputed that liability really rested with them, hivtly on the ground that they were not tho responsible persons, secondly that the lighting was quite sufficient to satisfy the requirements of tho by-law, and thirdly that the by-law had not Leeu proved.—Thomas Flynn sa.d he was employed by Edward Holmes, a drainei, who nad the contract in connection with the excavation. He did not know defendant's status in respect to the work at all. Oil the date in question witness filled and lighted the lamps, and on returning to work in the morning tound one of them flickering, while the other was st.li burning.—His Worship said the by-law had not been proved. Irrespective of t.hat the obstruction did not to be a very large one, and one lamp seemed under ordinary circumstances to be sufficient for the lighting of it. The information would be dismissed. To a sim.lar charge preferred against John Alexander Wallace, defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s and costs. Neighbors' Quarrel. —Patrick M'Carthy charged John Michael with having assaulted him on the nigbt of the 17th inst.— Mr L. D. Burnard said he appeared on behalf of the defendant, but he was going to apply at the outset lor the dismissal of the information. Defendant had been charged under the name of John Michael, wheiea: it was the other way about —his name was Michael John. —His Worship: That does not matter. He has accepted the summons, and has appeared here to answer the charge. —Mr Burnard considered the point an all essential one—one that was quite fatal fo the information.—The complainant said he had known defendant for years by the name of John Michael. He was a tenant of complainant's.—His Worship informed Mr Burnard that he was not prepared to dismiss the information. Defendant had accepted the summons and had appeared in court to answer. The case would be heard,—Patrick M'Carthy "said that defendant was a tenant of his. About half-past eleven on the night of the 17th witness was in bed. when he heard defendant come home to hi house next door. He was making a great deal of noise, and witness was disturbed out of h> rest. Witness went down, and after knocking at defendant's dour he saw deson, and remonstrated with him about the noi e at such an hour of the night. Defendant here came on the scene and endeavored to put witness ouiside. In doing so he struck witness twice in the face.—-Mr Burnard said the defence was that if there was any assault it was justi-' tied. Complainant went into defendants house uninvited, and when requested to leave refused to do so. He resisted defend-' ant, who very properly took measures to eject him. and defendant admitted he m'ght have struck complainant with his openhand.—Defendant gave evidence regarding the conflict, corroborating the statement of his counsel.—The Magistrate said that whatever as ault had been committed appeared to have been of a trivial nature. The information would be dismissed without costs.—Mr Burnard submitted that his client was entitled to costs. —His Worship : The matter should never have come before the Court at all. One party was quite as mucji to blame as the other. I've said I will not allow costs. I'm not going to allow them. Marital Worries.—Margaret Metcalfe v. George Metcalfe. Mr Irwin for plaint ff, Mr Hanlon for defendant.-—Mr Irwin said this was an application for the variation of certain maintenance orders. In 1897 an order was made against defendant for the payment of £1 per week for the support of his wife, and 10s per week for the support of three children. One child was now over the age of fourteen years, and consequently outside the radius of the order. The order for the wife in 1899 was reduced from £1 to 7s. Applicant was now in failing health, and unable to earn her own living. Counsel asked for a variation of the orders in applicant's favor.—Evidence was given by Mrs Metcalfe and bv her husband (who said he was only earning £2 per week).—His Worship ordered him to pay 5s per week for each of two children, and increased the wife's maintenance to 10s per week. Catherine Cullen applied to the Court for an order of summary separation from her husband, James Joseph Cullen, on the grounds of crmlty and neglect. .Mr Hanlon appeared for complainant and Mr B. S. Irwin for defendant—Mr Hanlon said the parties had been married for three years, and for two years defendant had been corsi-tently cruel to his wife. Counsel detailed the acts complained of, and evidence was taken on both sides.—His Worship said there was not sufficient evidence to show n g'«ct to proy:de proper means of maintenance. Both parties had apparently b d tempers, and quarrels were the outcome He ■ thought defendant had been guilty of some I cruelty, and probably had not been all' that he should have been in his conduct i w «ds his wife. The case, however j would be dismissed, no order could be made, and no costs allowed. !