POLICE COURT.—TUESDAY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4336, 6 October 1875, Page 3

POLICE COURT.—TUESDAY.

[Before ;j. Cosgrave and C N. Marshal], EsQ3., Justices.] Drunkenness.— Two persons for this offence were each fined 5a and costs, with the usual alternative. nnniTviT. Assault.—The hearing of the charge against William Kirby of assaulting with felonious intent Isabella Bain, ou the Ist instant, w3s resumed. Mr. Hesketh appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Joy for the defence. The Court having been cleared, further evidence was taken. Robert Moore, a brass finisher, living in Lome-street, in the froat part of the house that the informant and his wife live in, deposed that on Friday evening he was in the closet, which is about eight or ten yards from Bain's door. "While there he heard a noise like a rush of feet and struggling in the informant's house. He thenheard loud voices,'and stammering ans stuttering, tpt could not at first make out what was said. ' He, however, afterwards recognised Bain's voice. Bain said, "I hare caught you this time, Iwas watching foryou." "Witness could not hear what the other man said in reply, as he spoke very .indistinctly. Bain said, " What brought you here ?' *•"&■' the man replied, " I have only come for my money." Bain said, "I have been told about your coming, and have suspected you for ten months." He heard the_ strange man say, "You can;--t prove it; you are a liar." When the 'strange maj} passed, the closet witness Saw him,' and from his appearance he believed it was Mr. Kirby. Until witness saw the man pass witness thought he was Bain's partner. Cross-examined: I am a tenant of Mr. Bain, being in the front part of the same house. My wife was in the house' at the time. I heard the man. call Bain a liar, and Bain called the man a liar. I also heard Bain say, " Strike me ; 1 am in my own house." To the Bench : My wife was in the front room next to Bain's room and on the same floor. The door was open when I heard Bain say, "I've caught you this time." Mr. Joy addressed the Bench on behalf of the accused. He first drew attention to the fact that, upon his own shewing, the informant had suspicions against his wife for months, which ■ culminated in the mean and contemptible course of concealing himself in the cupboard for the purpose of witnessing his wife's shame. , If the husband suspected his wife, that was surely a test of credibility and of the value I of her evidence. It struck him that there was much sense and importance in the question by the Bench to the informant Did S to him and say, " There is a pain at .my feart, which I am sorry to say is brought about by the statements of my wife, and I come -to you to account for what has been (For ceniinmim ofntKt set Supskmen(.)

•A " As the complainant did nothing of the sort,"he would ask the Court to believe fhattUe circumstances described in the ridence were not only a mean piece of. octin&feat- further, that it was a piece of tin" *-of which both the informant and his wife Vere conversant. Both, <he observed, commenced by dealing with a lie. The hßstemd said he told his wife he was coingto the Whau, when he intended, to.do nothing of the sort, and -the wife said she told Kirby she expected . her husband to return immediately, when .she thought lie was on his wsy .to tho country. The whole affair was proved by all moral - inference to be a conspiracy. That the words " You are a liar, you cannot prove it," were used by Mr. Kirby was corroborated by an independent witness, but were really in favour of Mr. Kirby, as being a denial of • ,w ne charge. When they found the defen- ) t2sl using those strong 'and.'hot -words'of denial it was impossible to think that at that moment he stood convicted of the charge before the eyes of the complainant and his trife. He might have said this before third parties or behind tb.eir back, but it was not possible to conceive that he would say so had he been caught in the act. The complainant admitted that he went away for the purpose of giving Ms wife an opportunity of having improper intimacy with the accused. He had actually expected that his wife and Mr. Kirby would be together in a few minutes. Counsel asked why he shonld : tave expected and prepared for this f :It vas one thing to suspect there had .beeb.tbo familiar intercourse between them, and quite another thing to suspeet that he had only to tarn his backtohavetlas intercourserepeated. He seemed to have taken It"for granted that he had only to go away, and return directly andconceal himself in a cupboard, in order to have his suspicions confirmed. "Would he have taken it for granted and nave canceoled himself in a" cramped,position'.in a cheffonier at the specific time, unless it was -a plot between him "and his wife ? He contended it must have been a plot, or why should be have fixed upon that particular time and upon that action, unless he was morally certain that within ten or twenty minute 3 his wife and Mr. Kirby would return to the house ? As soon as the informant left home, they found his wife going down to Mr. Kirby's yard and getting change for a pound there, and returning directly to her house, the door of which she had left open. For what purpose did she do this, except to be followed Dy Mr. Kirby at her own introduction, temptation, and seduction, and to be found with him by her husband ? He would say that it was a plan, the effect of which was that the accused had been led away by the seductions of the woman. But what was not the charge before the Court ; no, the charge was for an attempt to rape a virtuous married woman, while her hur\\»nd waits, coldbloodedly, and does not appear until the moment has come when he can best accomplish his design. The husband, too, was sufficiently cautious and cold-blooded to keep clear of the police-statien, of the magistrates, and of every process of law for the night, but would rather wait and go the next morning to a solicitor and get a legal opinion upon it than go and lay a criminal charge. This conduct he thought would be unintelligible to the Bench. He submitted that it was the intensity of the complainant's madness, in being unsuccessful in his plot, that had led him to place Mr. Kirby in his present position, for if he had not done so after making so grave a charge against the accused, he would have been regarded by all who heard of the matter as a flagrantly dishonest and unscrupulous person. The present charge was easily made, but very hard indeed to be defended by the party accused, and it was certainly true that in seme cases .perfectly innocent persons were convicted by.means -of a foul conspiracy and a false oath. The action of the parties and evidence was such as would be taken in a case of crivi. con. in the Divorce Court. There was no ■corroborative evidence whatever, and lie submitted that upon the face of it it was a conjspiracy, a plot, or a base design to drag Mr. Kirby into the room on this occasion, and ithe link to drag him into this trap was the ■visit of the accuser's wife down to his cpal ;and firewood yard, and the husband taking his horse and cart in night of Mr. Kirby, as ■though he was about to leave, then putting them in a neighbour's yard and returning and hiding in the room. The learned gentleman :taen<x>mmented upon the evidence at great length. He submitted that the case wonld be.thrown out by any jury, and that there was; no evidence before the Court to Hast the character of Mr. Kirby_ for one minute longer,-or to further detain him in custody. Daring the delivery of Mr. Joy's very able speech; the prisoner was at times greatly agitated. At one time he cried out " That's Gospel truth." At other times, he called across the Court to the complainant, and made -.use. of opprobrious epithets towards him. The Bench reprimanded the acoased, who apologised for bis conduct. He said that he did not mean any disrespect to tho Bench, ibnt that he was overcome by his feelings. The Bench found it necessary ±o inform .him that the next time he disturbed. ike Court, he would be removed from the dock. After this warning the accused checked himself, but not without a very apparent and painful effort. Upon the conclusion .of the address, the justices retired for about (two minutes, and on returning the Chairman -eaid:: "My brother magistrate and I have both arrived at the same conclusion that there is not a primajacie case before the Court, and the case is dismissed." Before leaving the dock the defendant looked towards the complainant, and exclaimed: "Thank God I Thank God ! —you could not ruin me." •

Merchant Shipmng Act. —John Hays was charged on remand with wilful disobedience to lawful commands on board the ship John Eennie. Mr. Hesketh appeared for the prosecution; the orisoner was undefended. Samuel Nicholson, master of the ship John Rennie, deposed that the prisoner, an A.B, on board hia vessel, was guilty of continued wilful disobedience to lawful commands. On the 29fch of September the priBQ y "r refused duty because witness would V give him hia discharge. On the following day he would not do duty because he wanted to go ashore to see a magistrate. He was permitted to go ashore iu the captain's boat. The next day he again refused duty, and was given into custody. To the prisoner : You asked for your discharge on several occasions. I refused to give it to you. sTou said that if you were to go to sea • in tlie vessel the forecastle must be repaired. Michael Nicholson, chief officer of the ship John Rennie, gave corroborative evidence. The prisoner said he had five witnesses to calL The Clerk of the Court &sked if any wages were due to the prisoner. The captain replied that he did not think he had any money due to him. The Clerk said that it would be necessary for the prisoner to pay the feea before calling the witnesses. The .prisoner here got in a great state of excitement, said he suppoeei}. he was in a Court of Justice, but he could see how the case would go. The witness, he said, had committed perjury, and he was undefended and alone. Mr. Hesketh here offered to pay out of his own pocket the cost of hearing the defendant's witnesses. The prisoner still refused to call witnesses, and talked in an angry and for the greater part in an uruntelSgible • manner. The Bench asked the names of defendant's witnesses, and called upon them for their evidence. Three witnesses were examined, two of whom said that the forecastle did leak, but than the captain had had it repaired. Neither of the witnesses assisted the defendant in his case, and most of hie questions were quite irrelevant to the case. The Bench found him guilty of the charge, and sentenced him to forfeit 18 days' pay, be imprisoned for one month with hard labour. ■.■■..■"■ '■■

■ ThBEATENIWG LANGUAGE. —-Robert Scott wag charged with using threatening lan.

guage towards iSamueli KingU'on"the 20th proximo, at Waiwera.- Mr. Hesketh ap--peared for the complainant, and Mr. Rees for ;the defence.' - The 'complainant deposed thaton the 20th proximo he went to'the defendant's whaie, and served him with a fencing notice, and he then behaved in an insolent manner, and threatened to punch him. Defendant's father prevented his son from doing any violence. To Mr. Kees : I never threatened the William Hamilton deposed that on the 20th of last month he went with Mr. King to witness the service of the fencing notice. The notice > was delivered in a quiet and_ peaceable manner. Scott then placed himself in a fighting attitude, and asked the complainant to apologise. He also said something about punching the. complainant. This closed the case for the prosecution. The case was dismissed, each party to pay. their own costs. AssAtrLT.—Thomas Scott was charged with assaulting Samuel King, by striking him twice on the head, on the 20th of last month. The same counsel appeared in this case. The circumstances in this case were similar to those deposed to in the former one. . Complainant deposed that the defendant struck him with his first, and that' he had given him no provocation whatever. William. Haultain gave corroborative evidence. Robert Scott said that the complainant said he or his brother, or some one else, had injured his cows. He asked the complainant to apologise, and ho said he would not, and told witness to strike him. . King also dared hia brother to strike him, and his'brother struck him once with his hand. The Bench considered the assault proved, and fined the defendant 20s, and cost £4. . .