RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3249, 5 July 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, 4th July. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., K.M.)

TUKKATKNmO LANGUAOK.

Anne Collins a. Thomas Collins.—- This was an information laid by Anne Collins, wife of Thomas Collins, setting forth that: " The said Thomas Collins on the 15th Jane did threaten the said Anne Collins to the following effect :—lf over I know you to speak to or be in the same room with Marshall I'll murder you and do for him afterwards—and again on the 27th June he threatened the aforesaid Anne Collins in the words following—You wretch; and made aa if to strike her. From the above and other words, she is afraid he will do her bodily injury ; and therefore prays that he be bound over to keep the peace and put on his good behaviour. Mr Edward Cook appeared for complainant, and Mr Stout for defendant.

Anne Collins stated that she had beeia married to the defendant for about 21 year*, and had a grown-up family. She never had any peace with her husband since they had the Metropolitan Hotel, eighteen months ago. Within the last six months witness had been in Melbourne, and while there defendant visited her, abusing and insulting her in such a manner that, she. had to sell out of her business. Witness then came back to Dunedin, and defendant also returned about five weeks ago. Witness had lived with him since for a few days only. He Tind abased and insulted her during that time, but had never struck her. On last Thursday night—the night before the Masonic Ball—witness and her daughter were at her son-in-law's house, and after some time defendant came in. In the coarse of conversation, defendant asked his daughter, "Are you going, to the Masonic Ball ? I'll take you if no one else will," Witness' turned round and said jocularly, " I'd like to catch you going without me." He replied ««You -wretch, do you think I'd be seen in tliat ball-room with you 1 Why, they would not allow you in." He then used more abusive language, and squared up at witness for an hour, she thinking every minute that he was about to strike her. On the nigh t of June 15th, wit ness was in bed with her daughter, and defendant camo in at a quarter to twelve. He looked into the room, and said, "Oh ! you're in bed. He's had ft Jlong stay of it." Witnow asked her daughter what he meant. He made some remark, arid

weint on to say, " I've had * nice little gam* with that friend of yoara, Mr Marshall." Witness said, "No more of that, I have heard quite enough of it; 1' but defendant went on to describe how he had seen Marshall in company with some one going rap a hill. The demeanour of defendant frightened witness bo much that she conld not sleep, and got out of bed, her daughter doing the some. Defendant had gone down stairs, and witness followed him, asking him what he meant. Defendant abused and swore at her for about half en hoar, and said, "If ever I catch you speaking to Marshall, or in the same room where he ie, I'll murder you, and I'll do for him afterwards." The defendant always acted as if ho was mad ; and if he was not mad, he was very near it. Ho was in the habit of accusing witness of familiarity with several persons. There was no truth in those aeciißarions. Defendant hail not struck her within the last five weeks. The only ticue he struck her was while they were living in the Metropolitan Hotel, when he knocked her down en the floor aud tried to take her eyes out If dufendant was in tho habit of drinking, she would excuse him ; but he was not.

Margaret Collins, the daughter of complainant and defendant, gave evidence for the most part cor olwrative of her mother's statement as to what took place on the 15th and 27th. She stated that on the last occasion her father appeared to havo been drinking.

James Watson, defendant's son-in-law, stated that on the 27th June ho was present at the meeting between defendant and complainant. He used threatening and very violent language ; but complainant was in no bodily clanger.

Thomaw Allan, a ncighlxmr of the complainant and defendant, having given some evidence, the case for the complainant closed. Mr Stout said the only evidence Iks ■» ring upon the case was that regarding what took place on tho 15th of .June. It was a very distressing thing that parties who had been married since 1849 should quarrel in this way, but Mr Collins had in vain proposed that they should both leave Dunedin, and commence buuine&B together somewhere else. She apparently had refused to do so, and that might have had something t« do with the present quarrel. It was true that he had oeen jealous, and probably that also accounted for the matter coming before the Court. He would like to call Mr Collins to give evidence ; and he thought tlmt under the 45th section of the Act he was entitled to do so.

After some argument, the Magistrate said he had discussed the point before, and did not think that the defendant could he examined upon oath. He would, however, be willing to hear a statement from defendant.

Thomas Collins, the defendant, then stated that on the evening of the 15th June, he visited a friend in George street, and they went out to get some beer at the British Hotel. While his friend wetit into the hotel, he stayed outside, and saw Marshall witli a female on the opposite side of the street. On going home, defendant saw close to his house, Mr Hutehcson, who, as defendant carr.o forward, went away. Defendant on entering his house went upstairs, and looked into the room where his wife and daughter were in bed, remarking aa ho did so, " Oh, you're there. How long have you been in bed ?" She replied, "two hours." Defendant descended the stairs, saying, aa he went down, " somebody had a long stay!" She aftcrwardx told defendant that there v,sm some whisky downstairs, with which he could make some toddy if he liked. Defendant made Borne for himHelf and her. Ho said, during some conversation, " I've had such a lark to-night with your friend Marshall. He's got another sweetheart !" She remarked, ''Indeed!" and when defendant said he had Been them going up a hill, she said it was impossible, and got very excited. Defendant asked her why she got no excited. She denied that hlio was excited, and defendant contained his story. Shortly afterwards he finished his toddy, and went downstairs, taking a newspaper with him. After reading the paper for about a quarter of an hour, complainant bounced into the room, and commenced to abase defendant violently. Defendant requested her to leave the room, but she would not, and persisted in abusing him. He then lost his temper, and retaliated. Referring to what took place at his son-in-law's house on the 27th, defendant stated that he went there to see if he could not m.nko some arrangement to live peacefully with the complainant. Watson on his behalf made proposals with that view to complainant, but »he would not hear of them. Defendant admitted that he then got excited, but did not use any threatening gestures.

This closed tho case for the defence,

The Nfagi«trate : Before I make an order, cannot this matter be arranged? Although I haveseen in many casea that the making of an order has brought the parties into harmony ; yet, in many other instances, it has only seemed to widen the breach.

After «ome conversation, Mr Cook said that seeing the matter had gone so far, his client would prefer to have the caae decided.

The Magistrate said that since the matter was left in that way, he had no alternative but to make an order that the defendant should be bound himself in £40, and one surety in £20, to keep tho peace for three months.