Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, October 27. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., K.M.) BREACHES OP MUNICIPAL BY-LAWS. C. Dowsett, a nightman, was charged with an offence against the city by-laws, which consisted in his allowing night-soil to drop from his cart, which the .Inspector of Nuisances stated was unsuited for the conveyance of night-soil. The defendant argued that the facts were altogether insufficient to sustain the charge, as the quantity of soil that fell from the cart was so small, that “he could eat it.” His Worship held the charge proved, despite this asseveration, and a fine of 10s. was imposed. A second charge against the defendant, for carting night-soil without a license, was withdrawn. Mrs. Boulton was charged with lighting a fire in the open air within the prescribed distance from an adjoining building; but as the defendant appeared to be unconscious of the existence of a by-law forbidding the practice, and expressed her intention to be more careful in future, the charge was dismissed with a caution.

The case against Mr. D. Anderson for building a closet within nine feet of the premises adjoining his own, was adjourned for a week, in consequence of a difference of opinion between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Ollivier as to the meaning to be attached to the words “ the adjoining premises ” contained in the regulation. Mr. Anderson maintained that the words meant “the adjoining house.” Mr. Ollivier, on the contrary, argued that the term must be taken to include also “ the adjoining land.” His Worship did not wish to give a decision in the face of such a doubt, and an adjournment was granted to give Mr. Ollivier time to consult authorities on the point. STEALING A WATCH. Eoger Kennedy was charged with stealing a watch and chain valued at £lO, the property of C. E. Loobs, a seaman on board the schooner Cynthia. The prosecutor deposed to the loss of the property, which was found in the possession of Mr. Frankel, pawnbroker, to whom it was sold by the prisoner for £2 10s. The prisoner made no concealment of his guilt, and offered no statement in extenuation of the offence except that he had never been in such a position before. His Worship regarded the act as a most barefaced robbery, and as the prisoner had placed it in his power to deal summarily with the case, he would receive the highest penalty the law allowed, namely, twelve months’ imprisonment. The prisoner had only been five months in the colony. VIOLENT ASSAULT. Kobert Taylor was charged with having committed a violent assult upon James Waldin at the Upper Hutt on the 17th inst. Prosecutor stated that at about eleven o’clock on the evening of the day named the prisoner came into his hotel and asked for a bed, which he was told he could have ; but as there was a party of gentlemen in the “ long room,” whose discourse it was thought the prisoner would interrupt, he was requested to withdraw to another room or to go into the kitchen, which he did, though evidently annoyed at the slight which he imagined had been put upon him. When bedtime arrived the prisoner was requested to go to bed or leave the hotel, but for some time he refused to do either. At last he went outside and picked up a stone, nearly as large as a brick, with which he struck prosecutor on the side of the head, above the left temple. The blow was so severe as to render the prosecutor almost senseless, and while in this state the prisoner kicked him between the legs, the effects of this latter blow being such that Mr. Waldin was for-some days iu a critical condition. After committing the assault the prisoner was allowed to go to bed, and a policeman being sent for he was arrested. In defence, the prisoner made a statement, which contained neither coherency nor any justification for the assault. He stated that Mr. Waldin was a very decent sort of man, but that he drank too much occasionally ; that he went to the hotel as a “ traveller weary,” and in want of rest; that he felt annoyed at Mr. Waldin putting his hand on his shoulder, and asking him to go into the kitchen, as if he was not good enough to mix with the people in the “ long room ;” that ho intended to communicate his grievances to the editor of one of the evening papers; and that he was not at all in the wrong, although Mr. Waldin had been the greatest sufferer. Throughout the hearing of the case, and during this latter recital, the prisoner persisted in dangling his legs over the rail of the prisoner’s dock to give the Bench ocular proof that his boots were too tight to do Mr. Waldin much damage even though he did kick him between the legs. A witness named JohnCade was called by the prisoner, who declared that Taylor “swored wrong altogether,” his testimony being strongly confirmatory of the case for the prosecution. His Worship considered the assault one of a most unprovoked and savage nature, and as the evidence of Dr. Wilford proved that the results might have been very serious, the prisoner was committed for trial. ASSAULT. Mary Douglas and Emma Murch, residents in the classic region of “ Soapsuds Alley,” were the central figures in an assault case, in which the latter was complainant. The present squabble was simply the resumption of an old feud, hostilities being renewed by Murch being hit on the head by an old boot hurled by an unseen hand. The enemy being descried, the offending missile was returned with considerable force, and the infuriated pair then went at it like “old boots.” The combatants becoming physically exhausted, the “ unruly member ” was set to work, and the language that followed, it need not be mentioned, was scarcely fit for the drawing-room. Tho upshot of the matter was that His Worship bound Mrs. Douglas over to keep the peace iu the sum of £lO. CIVIL CASES. Seventeen cases for tho recovery of rates were brought against defaulting ratepayers, nearly all of them being settled out of Court. In the following cases judgments were given for tho amounts claimed and costs :—J. Berger, £3 2s. 6d.; J. McKenzie, £7', T. Y, Edmonds, 12s ; E. Austin, £2 16s,

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18741028.2.16

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4245, 28 October 1874, Page 3

Word Count
1,062

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4245, 28 October 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4245, 28 October 1874, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert