RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday, 4th February. (Before J. Udall and W. J. Steward Esqs., J.P.'s)

North Otago Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1191, 5 February 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Friday, 4th February. (Before J. Udall and W. J. Steward Esqs., J.P.'s)

I/ABCENY AS A BAILEE. John F. Cobb was placed in the dock, charged with the larceny, as a bailee, of 7£ yards cloth, of the value of L2 12s 3d, the property of William S. Muslin, Geraldine. Constable Green deposed to arresting prisoner on the previous day, on a warrant issued at Geraldine. Read over to prisoner the notice and description from the Gazette, and prisoner said he was the 1 person referred to, but added that he had left articles in his (prisoner's) shop of more value than the cloth in question. On the application of Sergt., Smith, prisoner was remanded to Timaru.

PUEIOTTS BIDING. John Adamson snd Henry Hemingway were charged with this offence, at Kakanui, on the 29th ult. The former appeared, but Hemingway did not answer to his name. Constablu Townsend proved the charge, and the Court fined Adamson Ll, and Hemingway L2, the greater penalty in the latter case being inflicted in consequence of the summons of the Court having been disregarded. Fine to be paid in twenty • four hours, or warrant of distraint to isiue. Failing latisfaction, 7 days' imprisonment, with hard labor. Adamson's fine was immediately paid.

TT8IHG ABUSIVE IilNaUAOB, AHD A.SS1UXT. Michael Kenny, and his wife Isabella Kenny, were charged on two separate informations by one Mary Ann Carroll with using abusive language, and with assaulting her on the 31st January. The two cases, resting on the same evidence, were taken together. The language charged against defendant and his wife is of a filthy character, and will not admit of publication. Plaintiff, and two witnesses, all singularly of the same Christian name — Mary Ann — were examined, and proved the use of the language complained of. Also that both defendants had struck complainant, apparently without any provocation, in the street. They were cross-examined by both defendants, but their evidence was in no way shaken. The Chairman then stated that either or both of the defendants, under the Evidence Amendment Act of last session, could, if they wished, go into the witnessbox, and give evidence, upon oath, but that if so they could be cross-examined by or through the Court. They declined to avail themselves of the opportunity, and urged nothing in defence, beyond an unsworn statement that complainant and her witnesses had also used bad language towards them, and had thrown handfuU of gravel at them both, which statements had been denied, under cross-examination, by the witnesses, on oath. On the charge of abusive language, the defendants were adjudged to pay a fine of 10s each, and 9s costs, "with the alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment, and on the charge of assault they were fined 50s each, with 9s costs, to be paid within 48 hours or in default, one month's imprisonment with hard labor. In a civil case, set down for hearing, there was no appearance of either plaintiff or defendant.