RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 6500, 15 February 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, February 14. ’(Before Mrß. Hardcastle, R.M.) Drunk.—David Roche was fined 5s or-24 hours’ imprisonment for having been drunk. : y Petty Larceny. —James Anderson came up -on remand charged with stealing 31b of mottled soap and a like quantity of candles, the property of Mrs Hanney, licensee of Tattersall’s Hotel. Accused was defended by Mr E. Shaw. The case had been remanded for the purpose ;of producing a material witness for the prosecution, named James MoOredie, who last week was absent at the Wairarapa. The witness stated that one day, at the commencementof the present month, the prisoner instructed him to take a parcel which was lying upon the floor of the billiard room, under the cover of the billiard table, where it had been left by a person whose only cognomenal appellation, so far as coaid he ascertained," wa's “Bob.” The witness obeyed the behest, and took the parcel, which contained soap and candles, to the prisoner’s house in Cambridge-terrace, where the articles were discovered by Detective Benjamin. The prisoner made a statement denying all knowledge of the alleged stolen property being in his house. The prisoner was discharged, the Resident Magistrate remarking that he feared ho jury would convict on the evidence adduced for the prosecution.

Indecent Assault. —James Mas John Smith, otherwise McGuinness, a youth- apparently about nineteen years of age, was charged with having indecently assaulted a middle-aged person named Sarah Ingoe, alias Roberts. The facts elicited by the evidence went to show that on the night of the alleged assault the prisoner met the prosecutrix near her residence in O wen-street, threw her down, and attempted to commit the capital offence. The prisoner was committed to take his trial.

Breach of By-Laws.—Walter Owen, on the charge of allowing a horse to wander, was fined 5s and 5s costs.

Mock Pool. —Thomas Smith, the landlord of the New Zealander Hotel, Mannersstreet, appeared on summons charging him with permitting the game of billiards to be played on his licensed premises at an unlawful hour—to wit, twenty minutes past 1 o’clock on the morning of the Bth. Mr E. Shaw appeared for the defence. Constable Bird gave evidence that on- the morning of the day in question he saw lights burning in the billiard room of the New Zealander. He entered the room, where he saw the defendant, his billiard-marker, and six other persons, all of whom had cues in their hands. There was money on the table, and he was informed that the game which was being played was “ mock pool.” Mr Shaw, for the defence, stated that the whole of the persons who were playing billiards were “lodgers,” and as the Act permitted the publican, to serve liquors to lodgers all night, he thought that it might be inferredjthat “lodgers” were also entitled to play billiards after midnight. This was the Interpretation he placed upon the 155th and 156th sections of the Amended Licensing Act, and he believed that the majority of publicans Believed that so long as outside customers were not permitted to play at billiards, they had "complied with the A c t. The defendant made a statement similar to the line of defence submitted ’by learned counsel.’ Mr Hardcastle, R.M., thought ’it was clear that the Act prohibited any playing after midnight, as the seotion contained the word “whosoever.” The defendant would be fined 20s.

Abusive Language. —Harry Smith appeared on a peace information-charging him with having used-language more forcible than elegant towards Clement Watson, a schoolmaster, in Abel Smith-street on Friday last. Mr Brown appeared on behalf of the complainant, and the latter proved the language used. The prosecutor, upon being cross-examined, admitted that he had chastised the defendant’s son, both upon thehand and also upon the back. Witness denied that he had ever got “into a scrape” for correcting children “ with undue severity,” but parents , frequently complained of his “ correcting their children. Further evidence of a Corroborative’character on the part of the assislaut'niaater of the Te Arc School was adduce'), Defendant admitted that, smarting under the ill-treatment of his boy, he had on the occasion referred to told Mr Watson that it he waled his boy again he would wale him on the nose. The Bench bound the defendant over in one surety in £SO, and himself in a like sum, to keep the peace for a period of three months. His Worship remarked that if the defendant considered, that his child had been unduly chastised he had his remedy at law. *'J