RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 753, 6 August 1886, Page 29

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

The Resident ATagistrates Court was occupied all yesterday week in dealing with the case M. A. B.i wards v Jas Hamilton, claim £25, for trespass and damage done by defendant’s horEes to plaintiff’s property at Island Bay. Mr Gully appeared for plaintiff, aud Mr Fitz Gerald for defendant. The case was not concluded, and stood adjourned uutil the next Friday.

Judgments for plaintiffs were given as follows in the Resident Slagistr&te’a Court yesterday week :—A. Williams v F. K. Parslow, £1 Is 6 i, costs 63 ; R. McDonald v T. Ritson, 10a 6d, co3ts 6« ; R, Guilford v J. Toof. £3 4s 7d, costs 6s. Ia the case of H. T. Windust v William Henderson, a claim of £l7 la Id, a set-off for labor put ia by defendant was allowed, and judgment wos given in favor of the latter, with Roosts £1 4s. Air iitzGerald appeared for plaintiff and Mr Brown for. defendant. Au order was made in the case oE Bock and Cousins v A. G. Legafct for £9 2s within 14 days, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday week, before Air XVaraell, Alfred Hammond, late boardieghouse-keeper, was charged with using obscene language, assaulting a constible while iu ti e execution of bis duty, and damaging hi 3 uniform to the extent of £l. Mr Jellicoe appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Constable Leahy deposed that on Wednesday night he proceeded to .Cambridge-road in consequence of receiving information to the effect that Hammond was ill-treating his wife. On going to the h use witness found Hammond breaking no the crockery after having turned bis wife into the stre3t in her nightdress. Witness then addressed himself to Mrs Hammond, and while in conversation with her defendant came out and struck him in tbe face, causing his eye to blacken. Hammond kicked him and tore his trousers, using at the same time very indecent language. Witness proceeded to take him into custody, but defendant tried to kick and bite him, and assistance had to be obtained to convey him to the lock-up. Hammond was not drunk, but had had some liquor. Other witnesses were called to prove that defendant a wife was insufficiently clothed » the street, and screaming “murder.” Constable Leahy, recalled, said he had arrested Hammond for I assault. Catherine Hammond, called for the

defence, said she had gone out voluntarily in her nlater because her husband was cross with her. The row was over before the constable arrived. Mr Wardell held that the constable had acted according to his duty, and convicted Hammond of assault only, ordering Jiim to be imprisoned for fourteen days with hard labor. Subsequently bia Worship remitted the sentence of 14 days to a fine of £l, with costs £l-123, as the accused would lose his situation as cock on board the barque Kentish Lass.

The adjourned case of Edward Symons v, Nathaniel Nathan, bookmaker, in which the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £25, the amount of a cheque, was again brought before the Magistrate last Fjilay morning. Some further evidence was takea in the case, the defendant being examined at great length. His Worship withheld his decision till 10.30 o’clock next morning. Mr Fitzherberfc appeared for (plaintiff, and Mr Edwards for the defence.

An assault case was heard, at the Resident Magistrate’s Court last Friday morning, before Mr Wardell, R.M., in which Thomas Wilson, a sailor on board tbe steamer Hauraki, was charged with assaulting Albert Sainsbury, cook of the steamer. Mr Thompson appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Jellicoe for the defence. The evidence went to chow that on the 20th, the accused went into the ship’s galley and complained to the cook that tbe porridge was cold and not properly cooked, and had then takeD a ladleful of the porridge and thrown- the scalding into the cock’s face. His Worship held that an aseault had been committed, and ordered the accused to pay a fine of £1 with £2 83 costs, or in default one week’s imprisonment.

At the Resident Magistrate’s Court last Fridry morning a civil case was heard, in which Dr Gillon claimed from Thomas Dougherty, of Johnsonvilte, £5 ss, as fee for proceeding to that district on a recent Saturday evening to attend to a lad who had been injured. Mr Skerrett appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Edwards for defendant. Dr GiHon stated that his usual charge, if he had been called away to Johnsonville at, perhaps, 11 a.m woald only have been £4 4s, bnt as he bad been called upon to proceed to Johnßonville at his regular hour for consultation, he had charged an extra guinea. Mr Wardell did not think that plaintiff was entitled to make extra charge, owing to the inconvenience of the hour, unless a special arrangement had been made. He therefore gave judgment for £4 4s, with £1 7s costs. Counsel for plantiff obtained leave to appeal.

In tbe adjourned civil case, Symonda v. Nathan, claim £25, Mr Wardell, R.M., gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs £8 13s, at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday morning. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday, an old man named Charles Sextus Rudd was charged with threatening to commit suicide, and was called on to show why he should not find sureties to keep the peace. Sergeant Morice deposed that when the accused wa3 brought to the police station by Constable Pennefather he was in a very despondant state, aad had threatened to commit suicide. He was without means of subsistence, and had no friends in Wellington. Accused wa3 remanded for a week for medical treatment. Mary Moxham, an old offender for drunkenness, was fined £l, or in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. Another female for the same offence, was fined 10s, or in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. The Bench at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Monday was occupied by Messrs T. G. McCarthy, W. R. Williams, W. R. Waters, and S. R. Dransfield, Justices. John McNalty was charged with having been found illegally on the premises of Messrs Edwards and Moorhouse. He was sentenced to 24 hours’ imprisonment. (Mr D. W. Buckie took Mr Dranefield’s place on the Bench at this stage). Nicholas Fernandes was fined 5s and 7s costs for allow ing his cart to remain unattended in Mole3worth street on the 23rd ult. Henry Bradnock, for a similar breach of the police regulations in Sydneystreet on the 19th ult., was fined 5s with 9s coats. , _ _ . T Messrs Eb. Baker and J. Bachman, Justices. were called upon on Monday afternoon to hear several. emergency summonses taken out acrainst persons alleged to have made preparations for leaving for Kimberley per the Kentish Bass. In the case of H. Wright v. T. Curtis, claim of £lO 8s 4d rent, plaintiff was nonsuited on a technicality raised by Mr Devine, defendant’s counsel. In Ann Ginni v. A. Bezzi, judgment was given for plaintiff for £2 03 6d costs £2 Is. Defendant confessed judgment in a third case, and a fourth was struck out through the nou-aopearance of the parties. The possible consequences of stone-throw-ing were well illustrated in the Residant Magistrate’s Court on Men lay, when a small boy named Herbert Jeffreys charged with having committed the offence in WillisBtreet on the 20th ult. It transpired that Jeffreys had been struck by another boy, and by way of retaliation picked up a stone and threw it at his assailant, but the missile, missing the boy, passed thiough one of the plate-glass windows in the shop-front of the Singer Machine Manufacturing Co., doing £9 worth of damage. The charge was not, however, pressed against Jeffreys, .as . the window was insured. The Bench dismissed the case after administering a severe caution to the boy. The only police business set down for hearing in the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Tue 3 day consisted of two cases of drunkenness. One was against a seaman of the Kentish Bass, bat was withdrawn to enable the man to join his ves-el, which was about to leave perc. In the other case a fine of 5a was imposed, the alternative being 24 hours’ imprisonment. . Judgments for plaintiffs were given in the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday as fol Jow3 :—Hislop and Co. v J. Rockell, £1 17s 63, costs 7s ; E. W. Mills and Co. v F. McFarland, £74 16s lOd, costs £3 14s ; J. and B. Sloan, v C. Redwood, £7 7s, costs 14s ; South Pacific Co. v J. H. Mitchell, £47 ss, co3t3 £1 10s. An order on a judgment summons was made in the case of Garrett and Co v M. Good for payment of £5 5s 3d by instalments of £1 per month, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment. In, ft civil action at fcb.6 Resident lMagistrate’s Court on Tuesday, before Mr H. S. Wardell, J. H. Williams sued A. E. King, pianist, for £7 1 0s, amount of order g*?en by Mr King to a Mr Manthel, and sold by the latter to plaintiff, Williams. It canoe out in evidence that the order was given to Manthel

ana third party during a game of hezird, and that the third party subsequently refused to nonor it, thus throwing the indebtedness on to King’s shoulders. The evidence was somewhat ccflicting, and in the end plaintiff was nonsuited with costs, £1 7s. Mr Devine appeared for plaintiff and Mr H. Travers for lefendant. . A most peculiar case was opened m the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday. It , was an action brought by Mr Taylor, as chairman of the Ha tt County Council, against J. McGrath, of Porirua, to compel the latter to maintain his wife, who had for years been supported out of the county funds, Mr H. H. Travers represented the plaintiff, and Mr Stafford the defendant. In applying for an adjournment Mr Stafford stated that McGrath and his wife had been separated far the last 30 years, Mrs McGrath having deserted her husband in 1856. Two years later she applied to the Resident Magistrate’s Court, thee presided over by Mr Fcrard, for a maintenance order, but it was dismissed.. The witnesses in the case had since either died or left the district, and he (counsel) deeired the adjournmeat in order to search the Court records for evidence in the present case. Mr James, Clerk of Court, remarked that he had been informed that Mrßaker, one of his predecessors, had burnt the records up to a certain date. Mr Stafford said he could not believe that such vandalism could extend to destroying all the books, and he should apply to some of the former officers of the Court and also to the Minister ot Justice, as it was necessary in the present caie that the records of the first should be produced. Mr Travers said he had learnt that the Magistrate’s reason for dismissing tbe case in 1858 was that Mrs McGrath was then a strapping young woman, well able to obtain her own living. Mr Wardell granted an adjournment for a week. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday W. S. Naylor, an expressman, was charged with a breach of the Harbor Board by-laws by refusing, on the 23rd ultimo, to remove his express from a position taken up on No. 1 Tee when ordered to do so by the Wharfinger. Mr Gully appeared for the Harbor Board, Mr Skerrett for defendant. Before evidence was taken Mr Skerrett submitted that tbe by-law was invalid, being uncertain and indefinite in its terms, and unreasonable, inasmuch as it placed unlimited power in the hands of the Board’s Wharfinger. He quoted several authorities, and argued at length to show that Buch a by-law was invalid. Mr Wardell, however, upheld the by-law, and the case proceeded. From the evidence of W. Prince, Wharfinger on the Queen’s Wharf, it appeared that on July 23 defendant had his express in the centre of a line of cabs awaiting the arrival of a steamer. Such a position for expresses was against the regulation, and he requested the defendant to shift his vehicle, hut he refused, saying that he had an order to move a passenger’s luggage. On being requested to show the order defendant declined. It was against the rales for expresses to ply for hire on the wharf. Defendant, being put into the witness-box, said he waß not aware of the regulation forbidding expresses to join the line of cabs. Prince had ordered him off the wharf altogether. Had he been told merely to shift his position he would have obeyed the order. H. Howland and M. Fraser, expressmen, corroborated defendant’s evidence as to his being ordered right off the wharf. Mr Wardell considered that the Wharfinger had not acted outside his power, and inflicted a fine of £2 and costs. An immediate summons was heard in the Resident Magistrate’s Court Wednesday afternoon, when an order was made on the application of D. Booth against W. Bishop, for the immediate payment of £75 15a Bd, in defanlt 28 days’ imprisonment. At the Resident Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, before Mr H. S. Wardell, R.M , two men named George Jackson and WiJiam Carroll, were each sentenced to seven days’ hard labor for indecently exposing themselves at half-past 10 on the morning of the 3rd August, on Bambton-quay. A charge against George A Iyer Parris for malicious injury to property, was withdrawn on defendant undertaking to pay 25 \ for the damage done and the Court costs. In this case it appeared that defendant broke a window in the shop-front of Mr Geo, Smart's oyster saloon on Bambtonquay, on the evening of the 3rd inst., the damage done being the result of an accident. William Smith was sentenced to 24 hours’ imprisonment for being found by night sleeping in a shed or smithy situated on the property of Mr J. Saunders, Kaiwarra-road. Mr Saunders was called, but did not press the charge against the accnsed, as there was no evidence of criminal intent. In sentencing Smith, Mr Wardell said it was necessary that people of Smith's class should know that they had no right to sleep on other people’s premises. It may be mentioned that Smith was the man suspected by the police of answering the description of Oaffrey, the Great Barrier murderer. William Chapman was charged with failing to provide for the maintenance of his four children. It transpired that Chapman’s wife had obtained a protection order agaiDSt him, and that he had only come out of gaol on Monday week, where he had been detained owing to his. inability to find sureties to quarantee his keeping the peace. Mr Wardell said the public had had to support his children, and it was necessary that lie should be called upon to contribute toward their maintenance, Accused said he was a laboring man, and had been unable to find regular employment. The case was then adjourned until Tuesday in order that defendant might be enabled in the meantime to make some arrangement.