EESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 180, 25 June 1862, Page 4

EESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, 24th Jcnk, 1802. (Before Alfred Chetham Strode, Esq., R.M.) Dkunkenxess.—Ann Dnnbar, for tins offence, having been convicted on the 11th and 22nd May,, was fined 205., together with seven days imprisonment. Ephraim Roberts, who pleaded a first transgression, was fined 10s., or in default of payment, committed for twenty-four hours. John Davidson, for a similar offence, was disposed of in a like manner. JairnorEii Language.—Eliza Dwyer was informed against by constable John Andrews, for having on the 23rd June instant, uttered abusive and indecent language in a public place. The prosecutor stated that the offence occurred in Hope-street. The defendant said this was the first time that she had c.-jr committed herself She was fined 20s. Uklawfui, Resistance. —George J. Baker was charged with unlawfully'resisting constable John Anderson in the execution of his duty, when the police-officer was arresting Eliza Dwycr, abovementioned. Ho was fined 40s. and edsts. TaESPASs.—Samuel Isoyes was charged by police sergeant. Chapman with misconduct, in having permitted his cow to stray within the limits of the town boundary. The case was not satisfactorily sustained, and was accordingly dismissed. UittMiOTECTED Houses. —David Thompson was charged with, remaining at such a distance from his carriage, as to have no control over his horse. The offence was alleged to have occurred at the corner of Walker and Princes-streets on Friday night. He was fln?d 10s, and costs, taxed at 7s 6d. — JamesTJees was likewise charged with having deserted his horse, and was also fined in the penalty of 10s and costs. His Worship gave public notice that* on conviction of a second offence, the Bench would impose a heavier fine. He was determined to put a stop to this nuisance. ... Resisting tub I'olice. —George Langley, driver for Cobb and Co., was charged by Con-: stable 'William Connor ■with having assaulted and beaten him. Mr. South appeared for the defendant.. The prosecutor stated that about half-past ten o'clock last night he was on duty in Princesstreet, near the cutting, when he saw a man coining through it, with a bundle under his arm, and his face muffled up. When asked where he was going to he said he was proceeding homewarrls,and when asked whence he came he declined to tell. Upon being asked what his name was he,refused to Say. The constable, having instructions to interrogate all unknown and suspicious persons after nightfall, took the coat already mentioned witli the view of examining it, upon which defendant struck him (complainant) a violent blow. Another constable coming up, and a crowd collecting, he was taken into custody. The defendant stated thaf he was proceeding homewards through the cut? ■ ing when the constables presented themselves, and thrust the flash-light of their patrol lanterns into his face, demanding of him who he was, where he came from, where he was going, and what it was he had with him. He declined to answer these questions, and when they attempted to deprive him of his coat he naturally resisted in defence of his own property. They then struck him over the head with a lantern, and conveyed him to the lock-up. As they were proceeding down Stafford-street, he said to them that he was 'driver for Cobb's coach; to which one of the police made answer that he would not drive any coach to-morrow morning. He wished them to go to a Mr. Hoyt's to ascertain his character, but

this they refused. When lie was in the watchhouse lie had his children's lmir ruddy taken from him, and. sprinkled all over one of the desks or ttiblcs. He was in the first instant charged on suspicion of being in possession of stolen property, lint this c'.iiiigc was abando ed, and the minor one of resistance subsequently substituted, lie had been admitted to bail in a deposit of £5. ■—i... The Bench considered the case proved, and fined In n iv a mitigated penalty of 10s., together with costs. The masi num Hue was £10. TUB SLY GIIOO PROSECUTIONS. [Before His Honor the Superintendent, Mr. Charles Logic, Collector of Customs, and the Resident Magistrate.] Francis Noel, of the Cafe Royal, was charged ■ by William Lowe, with having on the 15th .tune, inst., sold two glasses of spirit—to- wit, brandy,, without a license. . . . : Mr. Howorth attended in support of the prosecution. A plea of not guilty was put on the record. Mr. Prendergast appeared for the defendant. All witnesses on both sides were ordered out of Court. Michael Lermon,sworn,stated : lain a miner, and reside in Dunedin. I don't know the defendant personally. I know the Cafe Royal. I was there on the-15th of this month. About five o'clock on that day I went to that house accompanied by a person named William Lowe. We remained there for about half an hour, when tea was served, alter which I- called the waiter, and asked him for two glasses of brandy. He brought in the glasses, for the brandy was served in tumblers. Mrs. Noel was standing at the counter, and serving other parties with drinks. I heard a gentleman in the place call Mrs. Noel by name. On receiving the brandy from the waiter, I gave him two sixpenny pieces. Lowe paid ss. for tea, after we got the brandy. Cross-examined: I have no settled abode in Dunedin. Should the defendant be disposed to appeal, it is difficult to say where I could be served with a summon.". I am not in the service of the Government, nor yet in the employ of the police. 1 have not received any money from the Government- of New Zealand. I have received money from the • Government of Victoria. I was in the police force there. I have been at the Waitahuna. I knew Lowe as a singer there. I never before t'le other day gave evidence in similar cases to the present During the last fortnight, I have visitel somewhere about twenty places. Sometimes Lowe and sometimes Trinder accompanied me. It was on Sunday, the 15th, that I went to the Cafe Royal. I went to about four places on that day. I went to the first place about ten o'clock in theforenoon. Lowe went with me on that occasion . Ido not recollect where I met Lowe. We slept together on the previous night at Hudson's, and left that place together. Trinder was in the party. He remained at Hudson's on Sundaj the 15th, but Lowe and I were together for the entire of the day, with the exception, perhaps, of half an hour or so. We had two glasses of brandy at the first house at 10 o'clock. ' Two glasses more, about noon, at a, second house we visited. I think the Cafe Royal was the third house, £and we had brandy: there- We went to a fourth house, and had brandy there also.,- I like to take the same sort of drink all ■ [ day. .I do not think I took anything else. Ido not think I laid the information. I paid the money to a. waiter. I do not recollect having ■ seen the defendant on the 15th instant. There is a large room at the Cafe Royal. It was pretty dark when we went in there first. We had some bread and meat for tea. William Lowe sworn: I am a laborer. I knowMichael Lennon. I was in his company on Sunday, the 15th. On that day I accompanied him to the Cafe Royal. I believe one Noel to be the proprietor of the premises, but I do not personally know him. There is "F. Noel" printed upon the Bills of Fare. We got there abput half-past four o'clock in the afternoon. We had tea,, but just before taking it, we asked if we could be served with brandy, and the waiter brought us ; \ two glasses of brandy in tumblers. Lennon paid two sixpenny pieces for the liquor. When we called for the brandy, the waiter went to the far part of the building, near to the front of the house. I saw a female there, at the further part of the room, wheresthe brandy was brought from. She was talking to some persoiis around her. There was tossing going on for some - drinks at the time. I think that female was Mrs. i ; Noel. Iliad heard her called Mrs. Noel a few minutes before. I paid aXI note for the tea, and -■• received 15s. in change. Cross-examined : I have been ten days going about Dune lin on this game, sometimes in company with Trinder, and sometimes with Lennon. I believe Trinder made some arrangements with the Government about the matter generally. I have seen Mr. Weldon concerning the business, but not in this case. I have been in a similar business at Waitahuna, and succeeded in five cases there. I made £30. upon the whole of the convictions. Had I not obtained convictions, I should not have had the £30. Nobody provided me with money to pay for drinks obtained in this manner. My object in going to the Cafe Royal was not only to procure something to eat, but to get something to drink as well. I went to two other places on the loth June. It was about 10 o'clock when I visited the first place. .It was ; shortly before ten, I think, when I left. I sleptat a house in Raltray-s'treet the preceding night. I tliink at the Success Boarding house. I think Lennon slept there that night.' If this prosecution . is successful, I shall expect to receive a reward in money. James Nimon, constable, sworn: I served the summons upon the defendant. Nothing was said then about the proprietorship of the house; but I had been previously informed by the defendant, that the premises belonged to him. Cross-examined: About three months ago, I had a case against the defendant fora nuisance, and about two days ago I had another information against him. At this stage of the proceedings, William Lowe stepped up, and said he wished to correct an error in his depositions. He had stated thct on Saturday night, the 14th June, he slept at the Success Boarding House, whereas he slept at Hudson's. Some parties in the body of the court said-they had seen this man conferring with an accomplice before he made the statement. The Resident Magistrate asked him if he had spoken to any person, and he positively denied that he had done .so. .. ■■';■. The Bench were of opinion that the information was fully proved ; and fined the defendant in a penalty of £50 and costs. Mr. I'rendergasfc now asked where William Lowe could be found, in the event of an appeal being made to the Court above. Mr. Weldon replied that the man's address could be ascertained upon application to himself. Another cask. — Fredcrek Parker was charged on the information of William Lowe, with having on the 14th June, at his house situated in the West Taieri, unlawfully sold a certain ■•quantity-of spirit*, without being duly licensed. Mr. Howarth conducted the prosecution; and Mr. Prendergast appeared for the defendant. William Lowe sworn, stated ; I recollect the 14th of the present month, and was at the defendant's house on the Wast Taieri, about ten o'clock in the forenoon. George Trinder accompanied me, and .asked for some brandy. Mrs. Parker said she had no brandy ; but she had gin and whisky. I preferred gin. Trinder called.for three glasses of cm. Lennon was with -us. Mrs. :'Parker supplied us with the' gin. There was a, small frame hanging up in the Yoom, .with the name "Mrs. Parker" on it; and*'we asked if it was hers, and she answered " Yes." We drank the gin. I paid for it. I gave half r a-crown to thp person calling herself Mrs. Parker, aud she gayc me a shilling change. ' ' Cross-examined : The defendant's house is situated about three miles froni here. We wei'p more than-au hour going there. I got, up thaj; morning as soon as it was light. J started qff about nine o'clock. Trinder and L, pnnon met; mp in Princes-street. I slept the preceding night; at the Success Boarding House. Idp not know who slept with me that night. Trinder was not there: It was on Friday night that we made arrangements to proceed to the place mentioned on the information. I did not see the defendant there at all. I was aware that; the house was not > licensed before I went in. The reason why I; enr? - tered the premises was because I noticed a number of bottles lying about the adjacent ground. In the event of the defendant being convicted, I expect to receive a pecuniary reward.

George Trindcr was called, but did not put in an appearance. Michael.Lonnon sworn, stated : lain a miner. I accompanied Lowu and Triudcr, on the 14th instant, into the country, out on the West Tairri road. We walked about three miles or better. We went into a house there kept by a person named Parker, and stopped there for some time. There was a portion of it in course of erection, and a tent in front of the house. After we entered Trindcr ■ called for some brandy; when Mrs. Parker said .she had no brandy ; she had gin and whisky. Trindcr toid her that we would have gin, and she poured us out throe glasses. We drank the gin, and Lowe paid her half-a-crown, receiving a shilling back in change. Cross-examined.—l don't know the name of the place, but the house is situated on the West Taieri road. Mr. Howorth applied to the Bunch for permission to amend the wording of the information, by inserting the name " West Taieri road." Mr. Prcndcrgast objected to this amendment being made. Cross-examination resumed : I met Trindcr by appointment in Princes-street, on the police barracks side of the cutting, if the defendant is convicted, I eaiinot say whether I shall receive any money. On the diggings it was frightful to witness the scenes in such low places—in fact it was horrible to see them. I have my miner's right (produced). I was discharged at my own request last December from the Victorian police force, and then came over here. At this stage of the proceedings, Mr. Ifo-vorth applied to the Court for permission to amend the information, and to have the indictment amended according to the evidence, and in conformity with facts. Mr. Prendergast remarked that the amendment could not be legally admitted, except it were of such a character as, in the ordinary course of affairs, would occasion any trouble to the prisoner, for the purpose of bringing witnesses, or to know what lie has to defend. There ought to be a certainty in these matters ; for, if not, a charge might be laid in one place, and the offence be committed in another. Moreover, the learned counsel for the prosecution was obviously out of order ; for it would be time enough to apply for the amendment being made after the case fur the prosecution had closed. Mr. Howorth replied that the learned counsel for tlie defence had made no substantial objection to his application. His objection had been made to the information ; and he applied to have this requisite amendment made, and he contended that he was entitled to have it, according to the evidence. The Bench ovar-ruled the objection, on the ground that the country, at present, was but very ill defined. (It being now half past two o'clock, the Court adjourned for a quarter of an hour.) On resuming business at a quarter before three, John Bcven ,was swornj and stated : I am a police constable ; I served the defendant in this case with a summons at his own house, situated a short distance from the Half-way Bush on the West Taieri road. The house occupies a position on the right hand side of the road leaving Dimedin. The front part of the house is made of canvas, and the back part is newly constructed of wood. I saw Ihc defendant there, and'scrved him personally. When I asked Mrs. Parker who lived there, she told me it belonged to Mr. Parker ;he at this time,. was at work in a garden. Mrs. Parker called the defendant from the garden, and I served him with the- summons. This was the case for the prosecution. Constable Keren, cross-examined : I have not a copy of the summons. I never had a copy of it. I left a summons with the defendant, hut I did not compare it with any other document. 1 did not have two pieces of paper. By the Bench : The charge on the face of the summons was for illegally selling three glasses of whisky on the 14th June. 1 read the contents over aiid aloud, to the defendant. Mr. Prendergast remarked that there was a manifest informality even here, because ,tho summons was filled in with three glasses of whisky, whereas the whole tenor of the evidence referred to three glasses of gin. _•_•_■■ The Bench'over-ruled the point. Mi-. Prendergast now proceeded to address the Bench in behalf of the defendant, and principally relied upon the fact that the defendant, being absent at the time the witnesses were served, had no power of exercising control over the actions of the party who retailed the liquor. The Court ruled the offence proved, and fined the defendant in a penalty of £50.

Notice of appeal was given. Anotiieii Cask.—John Riordan was charged on the information of William Lowe with having, on the 14th Jane, when trading under the firm of Riordan Brothers, unlawfully permitted to be sold two glasses of brandy at his house, situated in Jetty-street, without any license so to do, aiid contrary to the statutes of New Zealand. William Lowe sworn, stated that about 3 o'clock •in the afternoon of the day in question he visited the Cn.'o dc Paris, and asked fur coffee and tarts. Lennon was in his company. They then called for two glasses of brandy, for which witness paid the waiter one shilling. He drank one glass, and his companion (Lennon) drank the other one. Witness paid four shillings for the tarts and coffee. Cross-examined by Mr. Prendergast, on behalf of the defendant : This 'transaction occurred on Saturday afternoon, about half-past 3 o'clock. The defendant's building is a long one, with tables and forms on each side. Witness saw the defendant on the premises, where he was walking about. r Michael Lennon sworn, stated :I am a miner. I remember having accompanied Lowe on Saturday, the 14th instant, to the Cafe de Paris, which is situated in Jetty-street, Dunediu. It was about 3 o'clock at the time. I have seen the defendant there, but he was not present on the occasion referred to. We had some coffee and tar*s. I then called for " two brandies." We were supplied. Lowe paid half a crown (two shillings and sixpence), and the waiter said, "It is two shillings each for the „ coffee and tarts, and one shilling for the drinks." It was all paid for at once. Cross-examined :It was paid for altogether. The-payment included the innocent tarts and the xhilaraiing cofite. (L lughter ) James Minion sworn, stated :I am a constable. I know the Cafe de Paris. I believe that Mr. Riordan, the defendant, is the proprietor of that place. 1 know him to be there in management. My opinion as to the proprietorship arises from the fact of my having summoned him on one occasion for a nuisance. The fine in that instance was paid by the defendant's brother, because defendant refused to pay it personally. Mr. Prendergast addressed the Bench, and dwelt upon the absence of the defendant's brother in this case. • The learned counsel thus con - eluded : I tay,' with great deference, and I trust, that whatever may take place, thatl shall,at any rate, keep myself within the rules of an English Court of Justice. In making this appeal to you, I appeal to you as to a British jury ; I appeal to you as I would to the most'eminent judges .presiding at Westminster-1 hall, or elsewhere: and this I say, that, in a penal offence of this nature, where'there is involved a question of £50 as affects my client, the defendant— and, not only that, but his livelihood, and a largejand Valuable, property depends on the issuepfitbis trial ; and on what? The testimony of twp t ,persous, notoriously to be paid on convic-tion-.while these two parties are flagrantly contradicting themselves in the most important particulars". (Sensation in Court.) I call no witnesses. I raise no point of law. I now, your "Worships, leave the case to rest upon facts, and to rely upon its merits. The Bench considered that there were sufficient discrepancies in the evidence for the prosecution to justify them iir dismissing this information. (Applause, which was promptly suppressed.) Another Case. —Wiiliani Carr was charged, on the information of William Lowe, with having, pn the 11 tii June instant, unlawfully sold two glasses of gin, without a legal licence so to retail and sell. Mr. Ward appeared for the defendant. Mr. Iloworth conducted the prosecution. All witnesses on both sides were ordered out of Court. ' William Lowe, sworn, stated: On Wednesday afternoon about five o'clock I went, accompanied with Lennon and Trinder, to the house 01

"the defendant, known as the Steam Packet Hotel, situated in Maclaggan-street.. We had some brt ml and meat in the first instance : and afterwards called for some brandy. We were told there wns no brandy on the premises, so we ordered gin. I saw the defendant servo the waiter with three glasses of gin out of .a decanter. Wo were supplied with the liquor, and paid for if. Cross-examined : I have seen the defendant. When we went into the defendant's house, it was not with any determination of securing a canviction, because we did not know whether we could procure anything there or not. I saw the defendant hand a bottle to the waiter. The distance from us at the time was about the distance between the wall of the Court, and the place in which I now stand (about 35 feet.) Michael Lennon corroborated the evidence of the witness in chief. Constable James Nimon proved'the proprietorship of the house known as the " Steam Packet Hotel" vested in Cnrr and Martin, the latter of whom died last week. Mr. Ward addressed the Court, and contended that it- had not been prove 1 that his client was responsible for the selling in this instance. The information charged the defendant with unlawfully selling, whereas he is positively shown not to have sold at nil ; but the retailing- in the case had been conducted by his servant. Mr. llowarth said it was an established maxim in law that what a man does by his servant, he dues in his own proper person. Qui facit per ulium,facit per se. The learned gentleman contended that the prosecution had been fully sustained by the evidence brought forward on beha'f of tha Crown. ■ ■ Mr. Ward called a witness mimed Robert Randle, who, being sworn, stated that he had been in the employ of the defendant, and that the defendant did not make his personal appearance in the public room of the Steam Packet Hotel until between eleven and twelve o'clock on the n ght of the 11th June. If any one had sworn that ho (witness) took the gin out of the room, or that the defendant had personally poured out the gin into the glasses, that person must have sworn falsely. Mr. Ward again addressed the Bench, and said he should produce another witness of the name of Wells, who would prove that the defendant was never in the room on the date in question, and this being proved, the -learned gentleman submitted that he had made out a prima facie case against the informers, to justify him in applying to the Court for a warrant against William Lowe for perjury. He now called William Wells, who, being sworn, stated : I am cook in the service of the defendant- I remember the 11th June. I have, unfortunately, good reason to recollect it. I saw Mr. Can-, the defendant, early in the morning, and I accompanied him, at an early hour in the forenoon, to see his partner, Mr. Martin, who was then raving and is since deceased. I believe that the defendant remained with his partner during the remainder of the day. lam certain that, at four o'clock in the afternoon, the defendant was not at the Steam Packet Hotel. The defendant, William Carr, could not have gone down to his own rooms without my knowledge. After this Mr. Ward said he would not trouble the Bench any further. Their Worships expressed an opinion that there was a considerable amount of discrepancy in the evidence. They hold the charge not proved, and therefore dismissed the ease. The business of the Court terminated at twenty live minutes before five o'clock.

In the case of Corbctt against Thompson and Maynard, tried before the Resident Magistrate on Monday, and partially reported in our issue of yesterday, the Bench gave judgment in favor of plaintiff in the sum of £15, together with costs. ■ The undermentioned cases were adjudicated on the same day :—Samuel Collins v. Holies, Knox and Co., of Port Chalmers, for £15 4s 2d. Judgment for plaintiff in the full amount. Lewis Coleman v, same—action to recover the sum of £12 17s. Cd. Judgment in favor of plaintiff. George Anderson v. Ormond Gillies—aetion_torecover £20, claimed on goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff in this matter sued the defendant "suited/ The bmmTesTof the"Court on Monday did not terminate until a quarter past four o'clock. There were twelve cases adjourned until Wednesday (this day).