RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3862, 3 July 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, 2nd July. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., E,M.) The Ji-dgk give« ins Reasons.—On taking his seat, Mr Bathytite read the following- explanation :—The case of Harry Pearson, in which the information was dismissed on the 29th June, having had the public attention drawn to it, and there huinjr an apparent misconception prevailing in re^inl to the state of the law concerning it, I consider it rig-lit to afford further explanation on the subject, in order to prevent anyfuture misapprehension of the same kind. The accused was charged under section 4 of "The Vagrant Act, 1860, Amendment Act, I860," with misbehaviour in the Theatre. I was of opinion that the charge, even although proved, could not be sustained, it beinjj bad in law, and the case was therefore dismissed. The use of "threatening, abusive, or insulting words, or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned," is only punishable under the Act when it takes place " in any public street, thoroughfare, or place." Each of these words is of the same class, and the word "place" must be interpreted, as being a place in the open air to which the public have free access. The central space in the Octagon, the Town Belt, the railway platform, the terrace in front of the Supreme Court buildings, any of the jetties, may be mentioned to show what is a "place" in the sense of the statute. By no straining can the word "place" in the Act be held to include the interior 'of a house or building occupied as a theatre. In the same section of the Act the same phrase. " in any public street, thoroughfare, or place," is used in reference to obscene language uttered " within the view or hearing of any person passing therein." The words " passing therein " are wholly inapplicable to an enclosed theatre, and clearly refer to a place where the public have a right, to pass unrestrictedly to and fro. In no sense within the Act can

a playhouse or theatre be accounted a public place. Although the public gain admission on payment, those admitted have not the uncontrolled right to go to any part of it they choose. Their privilege is limited to the special part to which they aye admitted. It often happens that part of a theatre is owned by other persons than the general proprTetor. Private boxes are held to be strictly the private property of the persons to whom they belong, and no other person has a right of access thereto, and such boxes have been assessed separately for local rates. 1 had therefore no alternative than, to dismiss the charge, which I did, only alluding to one point, deeming it uuucccsi sary In the public interest to say more. Seeing the misconception which exists, and which 1 could not have anticipated, 1 have now gone more fully iiuo the matter. I will also take the opportunity to add to my previous remarks for the guidance of the lessees in future, that the duty of preserviug order within the theatre rests, in the lirst instance, upon them, and that the assistance of the Police should only be called for when they arc unable by themselves and their servants to maintain order. Their first care should bo to prevent the admission of any person of bad character, it they knowingly permit any disorderly conduct in any part of the theatre, or any common prostitutes or persons of notoriously bad eh iraeter to assemble therein, they become liable to a line of £20 under "The Licensed Theatres Ordinance, 1802." In the event of any person making an improper noise or disturbance within the theatre or lobbies, he should be requested by the lessees or their servants to leave ; and if the request be not complied with they may then proceed to remove the offender, using no more force than is necessary to do so. If the offender should strike any person while being so removed, be should nt once be taken into custody for assault by any constable present. The law on this point is established by the ease Leuisx. Arnold, i, C. and P., 351. It maybe added that a punal enactment must be strictly interpreted. A magistrate ought in no ca.se to strain the law. If circumstances occur to show that the law is imperfect, it should be amended in the ordinary constitutional manner.

I have also to state that 1 have thought over the point raised in Mrs Diamond's case, and am-of opinion that the supplying of liquor on a Sunday to a lodger in a private room in a hotel, when, it is paid for by him and partly consumed by a friend who is his guest for the time, is not in contravention of the :!3rd section of the Ordinance. Licensees should at the same time take care that no abuse occurs under the proviso of that section, as this may militate against them if reported to the Licensing Court.

DiiusKEXSHis.—John Mackic was charged with being drunk in Princes street, and as he had hitherto restricted himself to moderate draughts, the Bcuch discharged him with a caution.

Co.NTitAVisNTioxoj-'TiiEl'iiisoxsAcr. Walter Bridges, an enjfi .eer employed on the steamer Jane, was charged, on the information of John On£ram, < verseer of prison labour, with having, on the Ist July, been guilty of three separate offences, viz., loitering about Gaol street, near to where a gang of prisoners were working, a;ter being warned away by officers in clyu-^e ; using obscene language to the said informant within the hearing of passers-by; and with resisting and assaulting the Police in the execution of their duty while he was in legal custody. Mr Joyce, who defended, said uceused had placed him-clf in an unfortunate position through getting inebriated at v wediihur party. The charges were not denied, but these were mitigating circumstances, as he did not know what he was doing, and certainly had no felonious intentions. Hitherto he had borne an irreproachable character for sobriety and honesty, and through long abseneo, the little indulgence on the exceptional occasion mentioned, was aggravated in its effect. As to his general disposition and repute, he would call witnesses who were acquainted with .him to speak to. Prosecutor stated that accused, whilst evidently under the influence of drink, was loitering near Bell Hill on Wednesday,' where'a, number of prisoners were at work, and though repeatedly told to leave, both by witness and other warders, he refused to dp so. When ordered away, he made use of--very, offensive expressions A further charge of using profane..language was withdrawn, liridges was then charged with resisting the police when under arrest. Constable Conn said he was sent for by the last informant, and in his presence asked prisoner to leave the place. He stoutly declined to do so, and became very, abusive. Witness endeavoured to apprehend him, and had a desperate struggle to do so, having some of his .whiskers pulled out in the attempt. After some rough handling, he sueeeeeded in removing his prisoner to the lock-up. Andrew Vhomson, owner of the steamer Jane, said Bridges was in his employ, and had always conducted himself in an honest straightforward manner. The Magistrate said drunkenness was no excuse for suuh offences. It was a. serious breach of discipline to interfere with any public officer, and. it could not be overlooked. Kor such an act as he had been guilty of he was liable to very severe punishment, but being a comparative stranger, the Court Would deal leniently with him on the present occasion. For loitering about when called upon to desist, he would be fined £2, with the alternative of one month's imprisonment; and for assaulting the constable he would have t > pay a penalty of 10s, or be incarcerated in gaol for six weeks.

A Midnight Intrusion-.—Ernest Burrows appeared on remand, charged with lieinguiilawfullyon the household premises of Francis Batson, in Albany street, shortly after midnight of Monday. The informant's statement was heard on the previous day, and a neighbour now swore to seeing a man climb tne fence and jump into the yard about the time stated. Constables Dorun and Gilbert, stationed at North Dutiedin, deposed to the arrest of accused, and after being conveyed to the lock-up he took the opportunity to run away.' Gilbert went to his father's 1 evidence, and found prisoner, who acknowledge 1 himself in bsd. Sir M'Kcay, in defence, considered the most grave part of the matter the running away. The charge was laid under the Vagrant Act, one of the most stringent Statutes under which His Worship could deal judicially; SJuing that the offence could be met with no penalty, and that the offender was liable to twelve months' "imprisonment. The Police would not have acted so harshly had they brought it under the Town and Country Police Ordinance, which'would have inetthe merits of the case, and would allow of a penalty being inflicted. The distiuction was rendered all the more significant, as all convicted under the Vagrant •et were designated rogues and vagabonds. Before calling testimony as to character, he would briefly narrate the facts of the case, which were these : Accused was a member of the Provincial Brass Bind",' and there being a Regatta at Port Chalmers on Monday, they were in attendance, and he was induced, contrary to his custom, to have a glass or two of beer. . Being strictly sober in his habits, these had tiie effect of rendering him insane, and, by mistake,.he entered the wrong premises. His motive was unquestionable, for he' thought he was at home. Going to the door, he knocked loud, and asked for admittance: From this, it was evident, he had no felonious intent. He remained until informant came out and accosted him, when, apparently, finding out his mistake, he endeavoured to get away. In conclusion",'he (Mr M'Keay) might say that Air Batson had called at his oflice, and said he wns iu'error in st.ting that he knew nothing of accused, as he had since discovered that the bpyjs father was an old and respected acquaintanceof his, and had heibeen aware of the relation before, the matter would have been overlooked. John Hughes, bailiff of the Court, had known accused over thirteen years as a diligent and well-behaved youth. Mr Kremner, his em) loyer, and other witnesses, spoke of his honesty of purpose and steady habits. The Magistrate said the intention of the Act was to protect the public against.rogues and vagabonds—against those night jrowlers who were the terror of respectable.and peaceable citizens. He was., well satisfied with: the good character given to'prisoner,-'and trusted that for the futnre lie would be industrious in his efforts to redeem it.- 'As the only pimishmeut he could award would be to send him to gaol, he trusted his portion wouUl be a sufficient warning, and after a lengthy admonition His Worship discharged him. Obstrixtiox isa Pc;jiMc PtACß.—Robert Patterson was summoned for leaving- a quantity of building material in George street after dusk without a light. There was a doubt as to whether defendant was the responsible party, and the information was dismissed. Gross iMi'itoi'iiit/rv to LADiks.-^Frederick Hopcritft, .carpenter, and. George Moore were summoned at the instance of Elizabeth Haig, with assaulting her. There was a further charge of using profane and indecent ianguage. Mr A. Bathgate for. complainant: Mr Barton for (lefendants. Informant's counsel, in opening the case; said his client was a inHrried woman.and had Ui married daughter named Mrs liooth, who lived iv her mother's house.'in Albany;street. ;:ihe defendant, Moore, had been in the habit of waiting on her, and on one occasion he gave her a.watch and chain as a present, and ' sdirie time' after made discreditable proposals to .her. She indignant y refused to listen or have anything to do with him, and in consequence ho insultingly demanded the watch back, which shu denied him; had he asked in a proper.nuinher such might not have been the case. He threatened to injure her character by circulating a vile scandal, and thereupon there was a series of petty annoyances, whioh culminated by the two defend mt\s calling at her residence in a.state.of intoxication..-lifting" disgusting language, acting indecently—at least so far as Hopcratf was concerned—and insulting Mrs Haig, as well as assaulting.her.. The assault itself,was;not of an aggravated character, but the surrounding circum%' stances were such as could not be. overlooked. All the= witnesses were ordered out of Court, there being quite a bevy of the feminine gender interested in the case; a feature-being the -ajpathetic manner in which they gave their evidence ; none of the delicate questions causing a blush. Eiiza Haig^housekeepcr to Mr M'Leod, Forth street, was the owner of two houses in Forth street, one of which was occupied by Sarah Booth, her daughter.: On the afternoon of the 23rd, uljt. her grandson called to inform her that two young men were trying to force an entrance into Mrs Booth's house. She immediately went to her assistance, and met the two defendants, whom she enquired oftostiite their reasons for being there. They said her daughter was a thief and a whoie, and llopvruft said he was Moore's brother and she bad stolen his watch and chain.' She told them to seek redress for any wrong in the proper .way, and cease annoying, her. Tlu-y replied they were hot afraid of anything, and forcing open the door, which w;is ajar, with their feet, they entered the room, Moors seathi" himself onV'the ; sewing machine, and Hopuraft on an arm-chair. One of them pushed witness aside violently, and Moore asked Mrs Booth to shake hands and make it up. She answered "No ; I can never shake hands with you in fricna;-hip,"anil would not.do so. Seeing they were not inclined to leave, witness requested her daughter to come out, and addressing defendants said : ''"Gentlemen, you are going to reside here, 1 suppose, so I will lock you in." As .she was s animing tlie door they rushed out, and her daughter having gone for police assistance they did not return.—Hy Mr Barton : Witness was not living with her husband,-because he was employed on a farm, and her daughter's husband was also absent, he having run away three years ago with another woman. Another daughter of hew, Mrs Lamb, was also present, but, she did not make use of the remark, " Take and chop up the d—^-d watch and give it to him." No offensive expressions were used by her or her daughters, they refrained from anyi hing vulgar. Moore said if she gave him the w.iteh n pieces, he did not care. He would give her *'2O for it. None of them threatened to spit in his eye, or said they knew too much for the Police. Sarah Booth detailed the evidence given by her mother. Ilopcraft was in a temi-druuken condition ; and after some barney in reference to the watch, which she distinctly refused to return, they said they would go over to the Star and Garter Hotel, and show her up. On return.ng, they said they would " rather cry her in the street than obtain redress by law." Hopcraft used filthy language; he also stood with the front of his trousers unbuttoned, and in improper attitudes. She told " George" to turn th.it vagabond out. George said llopcrait had no money, but being his friend, he would stick by him. She said she could not shake hands in friendship. George said, "Not in adversity?" hhc replied, " No, George; I would rather be miles off thau that anything of that sort should hippen." Moore then lay down on the couch, and said lie would He there until he got his watch. Cross-examined: she enter- I tamed a dislike to -opcraft for making himself familiar when there was no acquaintance. She was intimate with George, having kept company with him over nine years. When introduced, it was ius a married woman, ana he promised to wait till her time was up—till she was a free woman—and he would marry her. She had not been in the habit of Kitting up with him after eleven o'clock. * o impropriety took place between them. She would swear that neither of the letters produced—one on white and one < n pink paper —were written by her. The purport of one cf tlum was to send her a pair of white gloves by liearer, the Bize, as he knew, being (ik— (Laughter.') She could trust herself with halt" a iloz-m at night. Did you write to him and request a visit ocrasiimally? Witness asked His Worship if she WWi bound to answer the

| question. Jt was overruled l>y the Court. Her oocnl);itii)n was macliiiiirft and dressmaker. Alice Hume, seuinstruss, an umiinrriod female of about HO, jjave iwrt corroborative evidence. She interfered, and was told to "put lior head in a bay," from wliidi nlio inferred that her absence was desirable. She heard Iloperaft use indecent language. I" 'defence, Mr Dartoll said most of the statements alleged were a tissue of lies, which lie would prove. It was false that there had been either obscenity, impropriety, or indecent exposure, and this ! case uas simply brought, to forcstal any action th.it might ho taken for the recovery of the watch and chain. Hopcraft made a statement in contradiction of what b id been alleged of Moore—but, being partkrps crimiiii.i, lie was prevented alluding to himself. Another witness was called in support of this testimony, and caused some auniscmeiit by submitting to counsel Some mathematical problems to solve regarding the relative position of himself and the other parties at the time of the occurrence. She denied the use of any obscene expressions, ami characterised the statements of complainant and others as unmitigated lies. Mr JUatltgatc was convinced that Moore hud used improper language, but looked upon the assault ;is very trivial. He dwelt in strong- teems uj>on their wh le conduct in the presence of females, and fined Moore 20* for insulting words, and dismissed the other charges. The case occupied from noon until five o'clock, at which hour the (Joust adjourned.