RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

New Zealand Mail, Issue 761, 1 October 1886, Page 9

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

The case Nees v Dowsett and William Robertson, £lO damages for assault, came oa at tbe Resident Magistrate’s Court last Friday morning. Mr Nees’ case ia that he was forcibly ejected by defendants from a meeting of the Wellington Special Settlement Association, of which he was a member. It was stated in the course of the proceedings in Court that the plaintiff would probably ventilate elsewhere a grievance with regard to the constitution of the Association. The case was eventually adjourned till the next Friday.

'William Templeton, charged with the Empire Hotel burglary, was brought before the Resident Magistrate’s Court last Friday, and remanded, on the application of Inspector Browne. . Lilian Leonard was charged at the Resident Magistrate’s Court last Friday afternoon, before Mr H. S. Warden, R.M., with using insulting language towards Frances Barnett, wherefore IVlrs Barnett asked that Mbs Leonard might be bound over to keep the peace. It appeared that the parties resided in Wingfield-street, and the informant treated the Bench to a glib recital of a quantity of most disgusting language, said to have been used by the defendant towards her. His Worship thought the matter was not one of any great importance, and asked Mrs Barnett whether she really was afraid that the defendant would do her bodily harm. Mrs Barnett said she was, and added that she would not be at all afraid if she was big enough to stand up and tight the other. His Worship ordered the defendant to find a surety for £5 that she would keep the peace for three months. The case against William Pashley, for having assaulted Marion Paul, was again brought up at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday morning. After hearing the case, Mr Wardell infl cted a penalty of 5s on The old offender named John Dixon was brought up at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Saturday, and charged with being drunk and disorderly. Accused pleaded not guilty. Margaret Keelev, barmaid at the Bank Hotel, deposed that because she would not serve the accused with liquor when ho was in an intoxicated state, he had thrown a pint pot and a match ornament at her. John Fitzgerald corroborated the previous witness’ statement. Inspector Shearman Btated to the Bench that no less than eight convictions bad been recorded against the accused during the current year. The Bench (Messrs E. W. Mills and W, Marten, J.F.’s) sentenced the accused to one month’s imprisonment with hard labor. Charles Richardson, a cabman, was charged at the Resident Magistrate's Court on Monday with having, in April last, charged a greater fare than he was legally entitled to. After hearing the evidence, the Bench fined Richardson 103, with costs 7s- Mr A. G. Johnson applied for the endorsement of the conviction on defendant’s license, but the Bench refused the application. Another case against a cabman named John Lane, for having used insulting language to Mr J. E. Fitz Gerald, was withdrawn, the Inspector stating that he would lay a fresh information. Three boys, named Francis and William Wells and Robert Irvine, and a man named Charles Baker, were charged at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Monday morning with having been found early on Sunday morning last in an outhouse near the Te Aro reclama tion without lawful excuse. The accused pleaded not guilty. The only witness examined was Constable Kelly, who had found the prisoners in the shed. The elder prisoner informed the Bench that he had been locked ®ut of his boarding-house. The parents of the other prisoners were in Court, and stated that if the bojs were discharged they felt sure they would behive better in the future. Alter admonishing the youthful offenders, the Bench allowed them to go. Baker was also discharged with a caution. The loquacity of an old lady, who, to judge by her accent, unmistakably hailed from the Emerald Isle, was the cause of very great amusement to the Court officials and spectators at the Resident Magistrate’s Court Monday morning. The old lady in question was charged with being the owner of a dangerous dog, which had bitten a boy named Mathews. The charge was flatly repudiated by the good lady, who asserted that she was not the owner of the dog, which statement, she said, Mr Johnson (Inspector) could prove as he had registered the dog. Having thus delivered herself she flounced out of the Coart remarking, “She’d like to know who would bring her back.” Her curiosity was gratified, and she was promptly brought back by one of the Court attendants. This was too much for the good lady, who exploded with indignation at being subjected to what she cousjdered an “ iverlasting disgrace.” All attempts at silencing her proved fruitless, as she repeatedly interrupted the case with remarks such as “ She was a decent married woman,” “ her dog had not bitten anyone,” and “he was as tame as any dog under the sun, and the police well knew it.” When the case was dismissed she triumphantly bounced out of the box, and with a cheerful “ good bye ” to all, and an inaudible remark about her dog, quitted the

Court. Messrs E. Pearce, J. Nathan, and J. Moore, J.P.’s, occupied the Bench at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Monday morning. Sergeant Morice conducted the police prosecutians. A first offender was dealt with in the usual manner. Charles Peterson was charged with drunkenness, and also with being found illegally on the premises of John Duncan, proprietor of a boarding house in Ghuznee-street. The evidence went to show that accused had entered a cottage at the rear of Mr Duncan’s house, which is occupied by several of the boarders, at about a quarter to four on Sunday morning, and had seized hold of one of the lodgers, and assaulted him. He was subsequently given in charge. Accused stated he had gone there with the intention of getting a bed. The Bench, considering the charges Droved, fined the accused ss, or in default '24 hours, for being drunk, and sentenced him to 14 days’ imprisonment for having been oa the premises without lawful excuse. Catherine Barnes was summoned for beiDg the owner of a dog which had bitten several people. The defendant pleaded not guilty. An intelligent little boy named Charles Mathews gave evidence to the effect that he had been knocked down and bitten by the dog. Several other witnesses were examined, but as nothing was elicited from the evidence to prove that Mrs Barnes owned the offending animal, the ease was dismissed. A case was heard at the Resident Magistrate’s Court oa Monday in which Charles E, Tayton was charged with having laid poisoned grain ou his property at Kilbirnie within three chains of the public road. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the defence. The information had been laid by George Smith, who stated that he had done so in the interests of the residents of Kilbirnie. He also stated that the grain had been laid so close to the road that children could easily reach it. He had had the grain examined by a teacher of chemistry, and had then laid the information. Another witness also gave evidence. Mr Jellicoe contended that the strictest possible evidence was

required to prove that poison had been laid. The Bench considered there was sufficient evidence, and imposed a penalty of 10s with 15s costs. The Bench remarked that it was a very daDgerous thing to lay poison as the defendant had done within the reach of children, and hoped that the defendant would take care to remove all danger to children that might arise from the action he had taken in laying the poison so close to the public highway. The Bench declined to grant an application from Mr Jellicoe that a recognisance might be accepted as security for an appeal. Messrs Eb. Baker, N. Reid, and J. Saunders, Justices, occupied the Bench at the Retident Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday moraing. Judgments for plaintiffs were given in the following cases :—H. Gilmer v J. A. Droney, £l4, costs £1 16s ; United Importers Company v A. Fallon, £lO 12s 6d, costs £2 6s • B. Egan v G. Oldham, £4 10s, costs 6s ; P McCumiskey v D. Anderson, £2 18s 9d. co'sts 4s ; same v M. Oakley £l_ Is, costs 7a - Terawhiti Welcome Goldmining Company v T. Smith, £5 4s 2d, costs 10s ; A. Hasell v J. Gardener, £8 10s Id, costs 10s ; Official Assignee v H. Phillips, 14s 64, costs 9a • same v J. Wallis, 9s, costs 6s ; same v M ’ Olsen, 13s 6d, costs 6s ; W. C. FitzGerald v H. Robartson, £5 18s 6d, costs 10s ; same v M. Oakley, £1 18s 6d, costs 7a; W. Newell v E. McNeal, £i 18s 2d, costs 6s. In the case of Wellington Meat Company v J. Wisbaw, an order was made for payment of £3 19a 7d within a month, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment. An assault case was heard at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Wedneeday afternoon, in which J. Smith was charged with assaulting J, Russell. Mr Shaw appeared for Smith, and Mr Jellicoe for Russell. After hearing the evidence ou both sides, IVTr W ardell fined Smith 20s, with costs 163, or in default 24 hours' imprisonment. A. cross-action brought by Smith wai dismissed. At the Resident Magistrate’s Court Wednesday, before Mr Wardell, R.M., a young man named James Wade pleaded guilty to havffig been drunk and disorderly in Ghuznee-street at an early hour that morning, and with having assaulted Constable Kelly while the latter was engaged in the execution of his duty. Accused was fined ss, with the usual alternative for the first offence, and 40s, in default 14 days’ imprisonment, for the second. A case was heard at the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday afternoon,in which the Gear Meat Preserving and Freezing Company was summoned ou the information of acting Detective Burrows for having unlawfully offered for sale certain birds of Native game, viz :—four pigeons and two ducks, after the expiration of seven days from the close of the game season fixed by the Animals Protection Act, 1852. Mr Barton appeared for the Company, and Inspector Browne conducted the prosecution. Inspector Browne said that having observed that the game had been sold by the Company, he had spoken to its representatives, who stated that the birds had been kept in the freezing chamber, and had been killed before the expiration of the season. As the sale was still carried on for some considerable time, Acting • Detective Burrows was sent to the shop, where he obtained information as to the price charged for the game. An exemplary penalty was not asked for, but if game were not protected a very wide door for poaching would be left open. Counsel for defence maintained that the Act was really intended to prevent the destruction of game during the breeding season. The Company, he contended, had a right to dispose of it since they had come by it lawfully. Mr Wardell remarked there was nothing in the Act which authorised the sale of birds after the time fixed by proclamation, and he must decide that the sale of frozen game after that was an offence. A fine of Is, without costs, was imposed.