MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIV, Issue 222, 26 September 1910, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before': Messrs W. M. Macey and E

J. Hill, J.P's.)

At the Magistrate's Court this morning, Charles Osgood was charged with, on the 24th instant, using grossly obscene language, and also with resisting the constable, who was arresting him. Mr G. P. Rogers appeared to defend, and a plea of not guilty was entered on both charges. Sergeant Hanson stated that on Saturday night after midnight the accused was with two others in the street creating a disturbance. After a little trouble the accused was moved , on, and walked a short distance away. The constable went up and remonstrated again. . Two of the men. went away. The accused called out to one of them and used the language mentioned in the charge-sheet. Con--1 stable Byrne then arrested him, but . the accused struggled and got away. The constable went' after him, and after a struggle arrested him again. When the accused was taken to the station there was a struggle at the watchhouse. The, police had great trouble with the accused. He came into town on a Saturday night, and got drunk and created disturbances. Constable Byrne detailed the circumstances as outlined by Sergeant Hanson. When he saw the accused he was dragging a dog across the road by the front legs. The three men were using filthy, language. The accused resisted arrest, and after getting to the station used more bad language. Constable Lamb corroborated the evidence of Constable Byrne as to the noise and language of the accused at the watch-house. The 'accused had been warned again and again. Mr Rogers said he would now withdraw the plea of not guilty, and would plead guilty on- both charges. He had pleaded in the first instance so that the evidence might disclose the fact that drink was the cause of the whole trouble. Osgood had no recollection of what had occurred, and would consent to a prohibition order being taken out against him. The justices fined the accused on the first charge £5 and costs, in default one month's gaol, the order to be suspended for a month to allow the fine being paid.' On the second charge the accused was convicted and discharged, as he had consented to the prohibition , order. A prohibition order was granted against him for twelve months.