POLICE COURT.—THURSDAY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4218, 21 May 1875, Page 3

POLICE COURT.—THURSDAY.

riVfore ■Ili.-imas ISi-ckli.im, Esq., U.M.] CiiAi:r;K of AssAfl.T. — Aimer John Turner \>as charged with having violently assarltcd, with an iron belavingpin, one Charles llrown, on the Stli of May, when on board the barque Marathon, in Sydney harbour. Mr. Uroham appeared to prosecute, and Messrs. J. IS. . Russell and W. L. Recs for the defence. Counsel for the defeiue raised the point of the jurisdiction of the Court. The prisoner was au Englishman, and so also was the informant, but as the charge was alleged to have been committed on board an American vessel, Mr. Russell contended that the Court had no power to deal with it, and quoted an appeal case in which it had been determined, in a charge of murder on tho high seas, on board an American ship, that the Supremo Court of Now Zealand had no power to try the prisoner. Mr. iirohain said that the assault hail not been committed upon the high seas, but in Sydney harbour. The answer to this was that, if the vessel was in Sydney harbour when tho assault was committed, that fact could not change the nationality of the ship, or give the" Court jurisdiction in the matter. Mr. Recs submitted that if the offence was committed in New South Wales, then the Court could not possibly have any jurisdiction in the matter. Mr. llesketh, as «,,m;«.< curie, asked if the case would not come under the " Foreign Offender's Act," which applied to and made provision that if the offence was committed in any of the Australasian colonies, the Court might take evideucc and commit the offender to the colony where the offence was committed for trial. If the offence had been committed on bo..rd a foreig.i ship in this port, it appeared to him that fie Court would have jurisdiction to try it under the Foreign Seaman's Act, but this applied only to cases of common assault The Bench remarked that the Foreign Seaman's Act was very curious in its operation. Under it a man might be punished for assaulting an ollicer ; but tho men might be assaulted by tho officers with impunity, and the Court could not interfere. Mr. Rhlscll drew the attention of the Bench to several legal points affecting the question at issue, and the case was then adjourned until Saturday next, when His AVorship will give judgment on this questio i, and should he decide that the Court has jurisdiction in the matter, the case will be heard on its merits, same day next week.

Wi ki: 1 >ksk::ton\—A charge of wife desertion preferred against John Miillaly, was adjourned until Satur.lay next, in consequence of the informality of the summons to the dcfouilant. Btiuiixr; iti:i;ri.ATiciys. —ronatlian Grethan was charged with a broach of the Jinilding Regulations, by re-shingling his house iu Lome street, without tirst having obtained 'liermi.s.sion from the City Council to do so. The defendant pleaded guilty. A similar charge was some time since passed against the defendant and judnnent reserved until the hearing of this ease. The lieneh lined the defendant in each ease the sum of i'."i and costs ; and informed him that if the roof which had been put on the house, without permission, was not taken oil' iu 28 days he would be liable to a cumulative penalty of £10 each day it was suffered to remain. A.-SAll.T.—lames 1,-iytlicr was clinked with assaulting .Inhn Wright, by striking him on the face with his clenched "list on the llthday of May. .Mr. V. L. 11. Joy appeared tor the complainant, and Mr. W. L fiees for the defence. .Mm Wright, the complainant, deposed that at about half-past eight on the I-lth inst. he had some words with the defendant. The defendant then knocked him ■down and trod on him. The only reason given by witness was his having told defendant that he should complain of his obseenu language to -Mr. Ireland. To Mr. liees : 1 never challenged him or used threats to him. David Talbot gave evidence of the assault as having been committed as stated by the complainant, but in cross-examination contradicted the previous witness as to hi.s having challenged the defendant, after the assault, and also to his having held an iron last iu hia hand. Robert I-iadler deposed that the previous witness told him on the day of the assault that he could not tell who struck tirst. The Court held that the defendant was guilty of the charge, but reserved the amount of penalty to be inilcted until the cross-case was heare". —In the cross-case, Layther deposed that Wright made use of insolent language about his (I-ayther's) wife, and struck him first, and that he then struck Wright after he had been assaulted. This evidence was contradieted by a boy named Talbot. The Heueh lined the defendant in the lirst case 10s and costs, and ordered him to find two sureties hi 1 10 each and to enter into his own bond of £-20; and the defendant in the second case was ordered to find two sureties of £10 each and enter into his own bond of £20 to keep the j'eace. Each party to pay their

Education - Rate.—A large number of persuns wore summonsed for the payment of tlio education rate. Mr. Alexander appeared for the recovery of the rates. In reply to the Bench it wa« stated that oidy such persons as could pay the tax had been proceeded against. The cases were heard, aril judgment given fortlio plaintiff with eost-sfortheiiDUse-liuld rate against the following defendants:— William llollis, Edgar 0. White, Win. MeC'all, George H. Legg, Henry Calthurst, James J. Duross, Win. A. White, Thomas Thornton, Thomas Cull, Stephen .S. Meyers, Joseph P. Prescott, Diigal Campbell, Andrew Smith, Alexander McNeil, Charles E. Browu, John Barrett, Peter Barrett, Ed. P:ady, Michael McDonald, Patrick Doniield, William Riley, Donald Taylor, Henry K. liurtt, Jimes Feuton, Robert Noble, John E. Dodd, Thomas Aitken, Henry Godwin, Patrick Mulls, Joan Conway, Jo!in Cumber, John Darlington, Michael Ryn, John Parkins, Thomas Cashon, James MeCaulay, William Macpeak, Joseph Bates, James liardman, Edward R. Edwards, Robert Aubrey, William Jennings, Michael Mullins, Samuel Mahoncy, Hugli Farrelly, Tliomas Davis, Kdwanl Simpson, Jolin liurkc, John Hewitt, Patrick O'Brien, John llogan, Stephen Wingtield, John Williams, Wni. Lomas, Peter Peuuell, George Rowley, Thos. Moouey, Win. MeC'onnichie, Pete>Mack, Jas. Bothwick, Jas. Clarkson, Michael Coiinell, Thomas Chappell, William Dare, John Green, Kiehard Hill, Thomas Logan, James Naylor, William Skclton, and John Shaw. Judgment was given against the following defendants for the non-house-holders' tax of 103 :—William S. Neil, John Heeuan, Robert Cashill, Edward Bullock, (ieorge Lipsey, Thomas Arnold, Alexander Uethune, James Morrow, Thomas Gordon, Charles Haekett, Thomas Wallace. The following cases were adjourned to the 15th July: James McCarthy, Michael Reilly, John AlcCtdloek, Richard Jones, William Purdy, William Mitchell, Hastings Baker, Willi.-m Bishop, Edward Bastick, Henry Clark, Alexander Burns, T. Donovan, William Howard, Robert Moore, George McCarratt, John MeLaughlin, John Morton, Phillip Warren, James Donnelly , , Robert Murdoch, and James BurrelL

Married Woman's Protection Act, IS7O. —An application was made to the Court by Mary J.-uie Gilbert, under the above Aet, for a protection order and a separate maintenance. Mr. Hesketb, who apxiewcd for

the applicant, said th.it the order was applied for on the ground of cruelty on the part of the applicant's husband, and ha should be able to establish that charge' by the evidence of numerous witnesses, should it be necessary to do so. Xotice had been given to the defendant in order that he might have an opportunity of disproving the charge. The husband was a man of means, and instead of slowly starving his wife to death he might easily have supported her. His Worship said that this waa not the first time lie had heard of the matter, and the allegations against the husband -were something shocking. [The defendant: "Ifi is not true.-] Hj s Worship said 'that ho hoped it was not true, for, if «hat had come to the knowledge of the Court was true, the woman lad been suffering a liviiu- death, . and it would have been'better for her ta have died at once than f> be killed by inches. -Mr. llesketh proceeded to call evidence to support theappliivUion. Mary.raneOilbertdeposed: Ihedelendant.Jain,., Kdward Gilbert, is iny husband. 1 have a family. ,f rive children by him. Their ages .ire imm eighteen month.-, t<. eight years. 1 have made a complaint against him fur enieitv and ncleefc.' He has always treated me cruelly, but foe the last live years his cruelty lias been unbearable. Jlehas kicked me in all parts of the bi.dy, and beaten me frequently. About a fortnight "ago lie gave me a blow on the heart, from which 1 suticred for several d.-.ys. I feel that, from the prisoner's usa"e, my mind is going, and that unless I get soma relief 1 shall lose my reason. 1 have been in .New Zealand "for twelve vears. 16 is now a year and ei,'ht months since my last eonlinemeut, and at that time Mrs. Russell brought me food from her house and part oi the food I bought with my own earnings. Ido not occupy the =ame bed as my husband. He has a feather bed and I have to He on shavings on the Door. 1 have never given my husband any provocation. My husband struck me on the eye and 1 have marly lost mv si"ht My eye was bad before he struck it. My husband has ample means to support us in comfort. He has landed property and money at interest. He has never .nven ma any reason why he treated me so, and I applied for the protection of the Court. To the duien.b.iit ; 1 said you were a scoundrel, and 1 oid so because you only left a piece of dry and -oar bread fur me and the children to eat. 1 dul call you a murderer, but it was atter you had beaten me, and you were murdering me at the time. I have ordered you to be home by ten o'clock because the doors were not safe and would not fasten. On one occasion you pulled two haudfuls o£ hair out of "my head. The defendant said that he and his wife would retire while his child was being examined, and the truth, would be obtained from her. The Bench said it was not necessary for them to leave the Court. Alice Lilian Gilbert, a very intelligent girl of about eight years, was sworn, and having been cautioned to tell the truth, no matter in. whose favour it might be, she burst into teai-3, and gave evidence as follows : I have seen all that mamma has just said. I saw father pull hair out of her head, and give her a blow on the heart. He lias always been beating her. .My father gives us dry bread and tea, and not good food. Mamma has often had to get food for us. She takes in sewing when she can get it. I have not seen mother give father cause for such treatment. When he has been beating her she has sometimes been angry. She never gave him cause to beat her. I have never known my father treat my mother with kindness, to the defendant : Sometimes you have brought home meat, but it was stinking. .Mother never called you names unless you beat '"•r. Defendant: You have been tutored.-' Jane Russell deposed that she attended Mrs. Gilbert in her ia»t coiiliuement. At that tune there was nothing supplied to Mrs. Gilbert but bread and a kind of tea, and not much oi that. Witness took fool from her own house. : ,i,.i b<lie,-,.-d if she had not done so Mrs (Albert would not have risen from her bed. M rs. ( albert was lying, when coniined, on a lew bags, with M.me rags on the topoi her '1 he defendant slept on a large leather bed, and never went near his wife during her coniinemeiit. Defendant: She is telling tal-ehoods. .Susan Stewart deposed that Mrs. (Jilnert had gone to her and shewn marks on her body and blood oozing from her head. .she told witness how she got these Mounds, and witness believed her. 'Ihonias Uiiitcly deposed that the ra".'ed blankets produced were what Mrs. Gilbert had n.r a bed. There was an old mattress there Idled with shavings !lu j ragg bufc Pot lit lor a dog to sleep on. This wasJlis. Gilberts bed. Sarah lioehiiek deposed to having attended Mrs. Ililhert in her last conlim-ment. Mis. [JusseU took in food foe her, but she never saw tile defendant give her anything. The children were very much neglected. She hud old sacks and cloaks to .sleep on. but no mattress. The defendant wasgoingtopay witness fl, but paid the nurse 10s out oi it, and otiered her the other, but she desired him to give it to his wife, and never received it. The defendant having been called in answer to Mr. H.sketh, doposed as lollows : It is a fact I hold landed property in Auckland, and am askiti" £1000 for one house I have for sale. l"do not think 1 am bound to answer your questions. The Bench threatened to commit the witness for contempt of Court if he did not answer the questions, and witness continued- I have other property besides that house in Auckland. My property is worth £2000Sometimes I make 10s in a week, and sometimes I make three or four pounds. The defendant said that the statements of the prosecution were false ; but that ho had ouly 0..0 witness to call to shew that he did not starve his family. Ho had shewn this witness the meat they had to eat, and the witness could prove it was not stfnkin". He then cslh-d .Toseph Whitlock, who deposed that defendant had shewn him some beef, and a-:ked him if that was like starving. He could not tell the quality or quantity of it. He did not notice if it was bad. The defendant had shewn him something else covered up, and he weighed it, but did not know what it was, and had forgotten its weight. Defendant : " 1 am sorry 1 called you." The Bench : Will you make an offer to maintain your wife, and children / for if ever there was a case disclosing cruelty this is one. If e\er there wa3 a case for which a man should feel ashamed, this is one. Itie hardly possible for a child like the one examined to d.iy, to relate what she has unless she knew that it was true. Her evidence ought to have gone to your heart. [Defendant: It did.J His Worship : Then. sir, you should do your utmost to repair the injury you have done, and that can be done by your ■ evotiug some of that i"2000 to the maintenance of your wife and children. Defendant : ill take the children. His Worship • You will do nothing of the kind ; I shall order .juite to the contrary. A man who can sutler his wife to lie on sacks during her confinement, is certainly not the man to take charge of children. I shall forthwith remove them from under your protection. If you choose, rather than drive the Court to a course it is always reluctant to take, t<j make a proper olfcr to support your wife, you may do so. The defendant o'tTered ten shillings a-week, and subsequently 15 3 per week, towards his wife's maintenance. The Bench : Give her a house and 15s a-week. Defendant: Xo ! I can have nothing to do with that. The Bench : Then I shall order you to pay £1 pur week regularly into this Court, and I shall make a protection order forthwith ; for this is the most cruel case I have ever heard of in the province, or in the colony, and I hope it will be the last.

Defendant: You do not know the truth. The Bench : So far as I can judge, the truth has been spoken today. The wife must have the exclu-sive custody of the children, and you insist contribute £1 per week toward.-! her support, and pay the costs of these proceedings.