The Courts.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 996, 3 April 1891, Page 16

The Courts.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

At the B.M. Court on Thursday, judgmenfc went for the plaiutifis in the follow, ing cases : —Wilkins and Field v, J. H. Wallace, £ll 5s 8d ; H. J. Rorlgera v. J. J. Robinson, £5 103; F. Redwood v. Wi Mhrphy, £2 10a ; Same v. Mrs J. Johnson, £4 ; Same v. T. E; Meritt, £4; Edward Banks v. A. Marsh, £2 10s; Agnes Miller v. Ellen Harding, £1 113 2d. At the Police Court on Thursday, a man named James Banks was charged with having stolen a watch from John Day. From the evidence it appeared that the men had been drinking together in the Pier Hotel, and Day laid down on a bench and went to sleep. When he awoke he discovered that his watch was gone, and shortly afterwards he learnt that it had been offered for sale to a second hand dealer in Williß street. He gave information to the police, and the accused was arrested. Jacob Frankel identified Banks as the man who desired to dispose of a Boston lever watch, bnt he refused to make the purchase. The accused made a statement to the effeot that the pro* secutor had asked him to sell the watch; bnt as he Was Unable to do so he bad res tiirned it to him. Mr Robinson said that he considered the charge had been proved, and sentenced Bank to four months’ imprisonment with hard labour. The action in which Henry Drennan sued Captain Muir, of the Invercargill, for £SO damages for an assault alleged to have been made upon him recently, came on for»hesr. ing at tho R M. Court on Thursday, before Mf H. W. Robinson. Mr CJoatos appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr H. D. Bell for the defendant; Mr Bell raised a preliminary objection that the captain had not received sufficient notice, and could not have attended the Court in time to answer the summons. His Worship took notioe of the objection, but decided to hear the evidence. Joseph W. Barrett, Mr Coates’ clerk, detailed what took place when he waited on Captain Muir to deliver the summons. He said that the captain UEed very strong language, and threatened him with oeraonal violenco Henry Drennan gave evidence to the effect that the captain called him into his room and abused him. Later on he came into witness’ pantry and ordered him out, saying that he would kick him. Subsequently he threw the plaintiff down and dislocated his shoulder, injuring him so much that he had to be lifted on to the boat which carried him to shore. The plaintiff, cross-examined, stated that he had been ih liquor on board the vessel. It was not true that he was the worse for liquor at the time of the scuffle. His clothes and all his effects were on board the ship; Joseph Barrett, re-oalledj said that when ho went on board to serve the summons, the captain asked how much it would take to settle the case, and witness replied that the summons was for £SO, and the captain then got into a passion. Mr Coates explained that he had told Captain Muir that a summons was going to be taken out against him, and the captain replied that tho vessel would not leave until next day, but as a matter of fact she left a few hours afterwards. Counsel having addressed the Court, his Worship gave judgment for £4O, and costs amounting to about £5 ss. The judgment to include compensation for loss of clothing, damages for assault, and loss of wages. Mr H. W. Robinson, R.M, has given judgment in several cases which were heard during the early part of last week. In the case of R. Garriock v. G. S. Graham, claim £2, balance of wages, judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs. In that of R. Garriook v. J. Sinclair, claim £7 10s, accountant’s charges, his Worship gave judgment for £3 3s paid into Court, without costs. Judgment for defendant with costs was given in the case in which the same plaintiff claimed £9 10a from F. G. Thompson. Messrs G. Beetbam, J. Kitchen, and M. Kennedy, Justices, presided at Saturday’s aitting of the Resident Magistrate’s Court. Four first offenders for drunkenness ttete fined 5s each, With the alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment. Lawrence Gosling, charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct, and with resisting Constable Quirk in the execution of his duty, was fined 10s, in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. An elderly man named Frank Houlihan, who had been arrested on suspision o£ lunacy, was brought up ott remand. The police stated that the gaol surgeon was of opinion that the acoused was now fit to be discharged. He bad been suffering from delirium tremens, but had now quite recovered. Honliban stated that he had lived in Auckland for about 41 years, and had come to Wellington in search of work, but bad not succeeded in getting it. He bad started to walk back to Auckland, but after walking three days and three nights without food he had found himself at Gtaki. As he had been without food for such a long time he was easily “knocked up.” The Bench decided to disoharge the accused. ffiAt the Court on Monday before Messrs W. M. Maskell and J. O’Meara; J. P. ’a, two first offenders were brought up on charges of drunkenness and discharged with a caution each. A man named Alexander Bullock, who couple of previous convictions against him, was also discharged with a caution, Charles Cunningham was charged at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, on the information of his wife Catherine Cunningham, with having assaulted her on the 28th of January last. The informant applied for the accused to be bound over In Bnreties of the peace, but upon the case being oalied yesterday morning, stated that she wished to withdraw from the case, and the aoensed was accordo ingly discharged from custody. He had only been treed from durance vile on Saturday last, having had a sentence for another offence to work ont subsequent to the datu of the alleged assault. There was a clean sheet at the Court on Tuesday. This fact speaks well for the law abiding nature of our citizens daring holiday time. At the Court on Wednesday, before M? C. C, Graham, R.M., two boys named

Charles Boyd and Thomas Hamilton, aged 10J and nine years respectively, were charged on the information of the police with having broken into and entered the dwellinghouse of Edwin Arnold, Tinakori road, and stolen therefrom money and goods to the amount of £6 12s. The mothers of the prisoners attended, and in reply to the Besident Magistrate as to whether they would have the cases sent to a jury or treated summarily, stated they would prefer the matter settled at onoo. The prisoners pleaded guilty to the charge of breaking and entering the premises, but denied takiog more than eight shillings in money. Edwin Arnold was sworn and gave evidenoe of having discovered his house broken .into, and missing the money and goods mentioned in the information. He had asked the boys whether they had been into his honae, bnt they denied all knowledge of the affair. He had then reported the matter to Detective Herbert, to whom the prisoners snbseqnently acknowledged having broken into the bouse and taken some money. He had, later on, received a couple of shillings from a boy named - Baldwin, to whom the prisoner Hamilton had given it to return to him (Arnold.) Maurice Baldwin deposed that the prisoners had told him they had been into Arnold’s house and taken Ss, and that Hamilton had given him 2s to return to Mr Arnold. The reason of , their returning this money was the hope of Arnold letting them off the consequenco of their act. They promised to pay the rest of the money back when they got it. Detective Herbert also gave evidence, and stated he was with Mr Arnold when tho previous witness had brought him the 2s referred to. Had subsequently seen the two boys, who acknowledged having broken into the house and stolen 8s in money. They denied taking anything else. This was the whole of the evidence, and the Besident Magistrate addressing the prisoners said he did not think—taking their ages into consideration—that their case was one for imprisonment, nor did he feel inolined.to order them to be sent to the Industrial School. He would order each of them to reoeive six strokes with a birch rod, to be administered by the police, and he trusted it would be a lesson to them, and act as a warning to other boys in the district. The Besident Magistrate made the order for each of the -.prisoners to receive a birohing accordingly, and the Court was adjourned till the following day. At the Court on Wednesday aftetnoon, before Mr Bobinson, 8.M., a case of some little importance came on for hearing rather unexpectedly. James Hook Coad, brewer, of Mitcheltown, was summoned by the Custom authorities that ho did, on the 28th of February, 1891, at VVellington, neglect to cancel a stamp upon a cask containing ten gallons of beer, in the manner required by the Beer Duty Act, 1880, and Amendment Act. Mr Gully appeared for the prosecution. The defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined £2O, and 7s costs of Court. Mr Gully intimated that he would not ask for professional costs.