Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 746, 18 June 1886, Page 10

Judgments for plaintiffs were given as follow, ia the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday week : —Jas. Smith v. Fred Levant, £l, costs 6j ; W. Macblin v. Jas. Bidmead, £4 11s Id, costs 7s ; R. Elliott v. E. Minifie, £1 15s lid, costs 7s; C. Pressman v. G. E. Budge, £B, costs lls ; A. Willcex v. H. Phillips, £1 12s 3d, costs 6s. In the judgment summons case of R. Elliott v. M. J. WHght, an order was made forjpayment of £3 3s 7d within 14 days, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment. In the case of G. W. Cole v. Celia Robson, in whicn Mr Skerritt appeared for plaintiff and Mr Gully for defendant, judgment was given for defendant with costs £1 12s. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court last Friday, before Mr Wardell, R.M., and Mr G. V. Shannon, J.P., a man nuined Frank Masters was charged with haviug indecently exnosed himself in Willia-street on Tuesday last within the view of three little girls. Mr Shaw appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. The evidence of the three children was taken, but there was considerable discrepancy as to time and place. Inspector Shearman asked for a remand, which Mr Shaw opposed, but suggested that, as his client did not fear the result of an investigation, the imormafcion should be withdrawn aud another oue laid. After further argument, bis Worship remanded the case until next day,bail being allowed in one surety of £25. In the course of his remarks at the Resident Magistrate’s Court last Friday, while defending a man charged with indecent exposure, Mr Shaw stated that Mr G V. Shannon, who sat on the Bench with Mr Wardell, had come to the Court specially to watch the proceedings onbehalfof the prosecution. Mr Wardell replied that Mr Shannon was not sitting for the purpose of trying the case. It afterward transpired that Mr Shaoaon, who had heard complaints from girls . attending the Terrace School concerning the indecent behaviour of a man in that locality,

had bronght some children to the precincts of the Court with a view to ascertain whether the man then before the Bench was the same person who had misconducted himself in the neighborhood of the Terrace. This not being the case, Mr Shannon had simoiy taken the opportunity while iu Court to take a seat on the Beuch. At last Friday’s sitting of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Mr Wardell gave his decision in the case brought agaiust Charles Dowsefcfc for neglecting to comply with an order of the local Board of Health to abate a nuisance on his premises, Tinakori-road. His Worship said, having visited the locality, he was of opinion that the heaps of rubbish complained of was dangerous to the public' health, aud he therefore ordered that a tile drain or 12in pipe be carried beneath the heap to carry off the water obstructed by defendant to the natural steam, and that earth to the depth of 18in be placed over the offensive matter complained of. A month was allowed for the completion of these works, and costs amountto £1 14s awarded againnt defendant. In a civil case heard at last Friday’s sitting of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, a rides named Alfred Humphries sought to lecover £5 from T. H. Bilby, as a fee for riding the hurdle-horse Titokowaru at a recent local meeting. The plaintiff stated that accoiding to the Grand National rules the fee for a losing mount in a hurdle race was £5, and if the celebrated Archer himself bad ridden Titokowaru in the late race he conld not have won. Mr Wardell gave judgment for £2. with costs £1 Bs. Mr Menteath appeared for plaintiff, Mr Skerrett for defendant. Frederick Master, the man charged with having behaved in an indecent manner before some little girls, was brought up on remand at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday. A fresh charge, alleged to have been committed on the 7th, of the same nature, was laid against him. Mr Shaw, counsel for the accused, asked for a further adjournment till Tuesday, as this second information was quite a new case, of which he had no knowledge, and objected to its being proceeded with now. Mr Wardell granted the adjournment, but decided to go on with the first offence against accused, alleged to have been committed oa the Btb. Three little girls gave evidence in strong support of the conviction. At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr Wardell remarked that he intended to deal with the case summarily. Accused was admitted to bail, one surety of £25 in each case. ; ... At the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday, before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M., four first offenders for drunkenness were fined ss, or in default 24 hoars’ imprisonment. George Stevenson was charged at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday, before Mr H. S. J Wardell, R.M., and Colonel J. G. Butts, with having assaulted Herman Braun, a seaman, in ’Willis-street on the 5-h instant. Mr Shaw appeared for accused, who pleaded not guilty. The prosecutor deposed that while walking down Willis-street at 11 p.m. oa the sth, the accused came up to him and charged him with having used insulting language to a female friend of his. Braun denied tbe accusation, whereupon Stevenson knocked him down, and struck him three times in the face with a lemonade bottle, inflicting a black eye and other injuries Con stable Burrows, who arrested accused, deposed to having found a lemonade bottle in his hand when arrested. For the defence, Ftevenson stated that Braun had used insulting language toward him. A quarrel eDsusd, in which Braun struck at Stevenson. The blow missed, and then Stevenson struck at him once or twice and knocked him down. Elizabeth Harris gave evidence to the effect that insults had been offered to her by the prosecutor. The Magistrate considered the assault a serious one, and sentenced Stevenson to 14 days’ with hard labor. At the Resident Magistral’s Court on Monday morning, before Messrs Eb. Baker and A. L. Levy, Justices, Mary Jones, an old offender, for drunkeeness, was fined £2, or in default three days’ imprisonment. A little boy named Sydney Smith was charged at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Monday with having used a “ shanghai ’ ia a public place, to the danger of people passing by and property. Rebutting evidence being brought by the accused, the case was dismissed. , A cabman named Lane was charged at the Couit on Monday morning with having demanded more than the legal fare from Mr H. B Kirk, and also with not having a copy of the cab fares in his vehicle ; and further with usiDg insulting language to the prosecutor. Defendant pleaded not guilty to the first two charges, and guilty to the third For the first offence, accused was fined £l, ana costs 9s j tor the second, 10s, and costs 93 ; and for toe third, 10s, and costs 9s. In each case the fines were paid. Messrs H. S. Wardell, H. J. Williams, and W. C. Buchanan, M.H.R., sat on luesday at the Resident Magistrate's Court to near the appeals by the City Council and Hutt County Council against the assessments against those holies by the United Chari-able Aid Board. Mr G. F. Martin represented the City Council, Mr W. T L. 3 ravers the United Board, and MrFilzGerald the Huut County Council. Mr Martin raised tbe question as to whether the decision of the Commissioners must be unanimous or not,. and after argument the Bench decided that m reporting their decision to the Colonial Secretary they would state whether the judgment had been agreed to unanimously or by a majority only, thus leaving to the Colonial Secretary the question of law. Mr Marlin based his appeal on the ground that the whole drift aud meaning of the Act lei to the conclusion that there should be one common purse contributed to by the various subdivisions ; that by allowing the Wairarapa districts to eecape, the United Board had 11011 acted within the statute aud that therefore the assessment made against the City Council could not be sustained. Mr Loveday, secretary to the United Board, was examined as to the assessment and resolutions passed by the Board, and, after argument, the Commissioners decided to give their award in open Court at an early date. A decidedly unpleasant surprise was given to a witness iu a charge of unlawfully playing with dice, brought agaiust F. S. Cooper, licensee of the Victoria Hotel, at Tuesday s sittiug of the Resident Magistrate’s Court. The police relied upon a man named W. J. Livingstone, who deposed that on the 17th of May he went into the Victoria Hotel for a glass of beer ; that the landlord half filled a glass with beer, and emptied the contents

of three ginger b.-er bottles into it ; that he refused to take the liquor, and demanded a fiesh glass, which was refused ; that fee saw four men in the bar throwing “Yankee Grab” for drinks, aad saw money pass ; and that in consequence of the treatment he bad received he laid an information against the licensee with the police. Mr Gully. who appeared for Cooper, called three of the men who were iu the bar, and each swore that no dice were used, for the obvious reason that only one of them had any money at a 11. Livingstone was recaUed by Mr Warded, and again swore iu the most positive manner that he saw dice thrown and money pass. The licensee was not called upon to give evidence. Mr Wardell s.iid ia face of the evidence of the three witnesses, he had no hesitation in dismissing the information, but one or ether of the parties had committed perjury. He directed that Livingston be prosecuted at the next sitting of the Supreme Court. During his practice afc the Court he had only once been called upon to take such a course. He considered it. a very grievous thing that cases of perjury so often toik place ia connection with hotels, but he was determined that where a case demanded action he would send it to the Supreme Court for trial by a jury. Livingstone here protested that he had spoken the truth, aud wished to explain, but Mr Wardell said he would rather not hear him. Either the three witnesses or he (fjivingstone) had committed perjury, and he would leave it to a jury to decide. Bail was allowed Liviugstone in two sureties 0? £SO each, and the other witnesses were bound over to appear at the Supreme Court. It is probable that Mr Shaw will be retained by the police to defend Livirgstone. The case Egan v, Egan, which has been before the Court several times during the last two years, was, it is hoped, finally decided by Mr Wardell at the Resident Magistate’s Court Wednesday, after a pilient hearing. The case was a very complicated one, and elicited lengthy, and at times acrimonious argument between Mr SLaw, who appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Bro.vn, who represented Mrs Egan,, the defendant. A 3 far as could be glesned, the facts appear to be as follow : —The parties were husband and wife. Afc the time of the marriage Daniel EgaD, plaintiff in the case, owned certain sections of land ia Christchurch, which were mortgaged, and which, on his marriage with defendant, Bridget Egan, he made over to her, she paying off the mortgage with money obtained from shares held in her own. right. Some time after marriage other property was acquired by Egan, which he made over to his wife and child. In consequence of subsequent domestic trouble, Mrs figaa obtained a protection order against her husband, and he, pleading desfeitut’oD, now sought for maintenance under the Married Women’s Property Act of 3854. Evidence was called to prove Egan’s incapacity for work, and Dr Hassell proved this to the satisfaclio 1 of the Court. Mr Hamerton, and Mr Brown, solicitor, also gave evidence as to the transfer of the property aud the income of Mrs Egan. Mr Wardell held that Mrs Egan, who keeps the Bay View Boardinghouse, had sufficient means to contribute to her husband’s support, is beiDg proved that she had a clear income of £3 7s 6d per week after meeting all charges for rent, taxes, insurance, &c,, and he accordingly gave an order that she should allow her husband £1 per week, and pay Co3ts amounting to £3 17s.