RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3923, 12 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

FRIDAY, Hth SETTEMBEfi. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., JBLM.) ' Inebriates.— Jane Croft, James Gpltf Jatuea Gibson, and Kate Boyd, severally charged with being drnnk in:a pubhVplaces - were each let off with a caution, there beißar no aggravation in either of the cases.

"StH3inxYTsAPULous.?>i-Allehir'ifast«--was charged, on remand, with being drunk: whilst in charge of a horse .at Green Island on Wednesday. Several witnesses weie'? called as to the , condition 'of; atecußed,oiMt :v statins; his opinion to be that he was "slightly trapulous."" The offence being clearly proved, a fine of 20s was inflicted*,., in default, 48 hours' imprisonment. ' *£ A Vagrant.—Mary Thomson, a very, oik' offender, was charged, on the information; o£ Sergeant Hanlon, with having no lawful means of support, and being a vagraat. Informant said he saw accused walking the streets at midnight, and cautioned heragainst remaining oitfc. Again, about twof o'clock in the moraiug, he found her with two half-drauken men ia Camberland~BtreetL '%' j and after turning the men away he told ncr& to go home, but she refused; She was well- -^ known, to the police, add was in? the habit q£fleecmg drunken men in out-of-the-way; places. Prisoner, when asked as to themocfe of obtaining her living, answered, evasively, that she had only been out of the Hospital two months, and since then had served a term in gaoL She promised to get a situation, and was remanded for a month to aive her an opportunity of doing so. 6 civir. cases. ' J. T. Mackerras v. S. S. Hutchison.— Uaim for £68 Is, for goods snpplied. Me Harris said defendant bad met with an accident at Christcburch, and could not be present to defend the case. Tht; hearine waa> adjourned until Tuesday. : Reid and Gray v. Capt. Masspn.--TRig. % was a claim for £4 103, for damage done to merchandise consigned to plaintifls, throngfe. alleged improper stowage. Mr E. Cook appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Stout for dofendant. The first officer in the Mairi Bhan, m which the goods were shipped, and Capfc. Cunningham, Marine Surveyor at Port Chalmers, stated that the goods referred t» in the plaints were properly atowed in tfce fore part of the main hatch, with nothing but light goodu upon them. His Worship said there was a special contract by which, tEe ship was not to be held accountable for. any breakage unless it was caused through impsoper stowage, and in the present case h&-~ thought the stowage had been proper. Jurfe. ment for defendant, with costs. Capt, Boyd v. Gen. Christie.—This was a suit at the instance of the ; Deputy-Superin-tendent to recover £14 Ga for -If sse of toH-^ bsr at East Taieri. The defence the defen*^ ant had was that the toll bar had' m<t:paHE3^ him. .Judgment for the ninount claimed with coEts. ■'■■■■■-.*.■*-

Cokman v. Pr itc) iar<?.—Claim for £9 ss. balaiKCof account &..r eeivkes ruuUrtd as bookkeeper. Mr E. Cock for plaintiff, and

Us Stout for defendant. Judgment was given for £5 as, and costs. PORT CHALMERS. (Before I)r Drysdale, J.V., and Captain Thomson, J P.) Refractory Skamen.— Thomas Chambers ■and Charles Burke, articled seamen belonging to the ship Tweed, were charged, on the information of her commander, Captain Stuart, with continuous and wilful neglect of duty.

Mr Joyce appeared for the complainant, and in opening the case observed that, as would be shown hy evidence, the defendants had behaved badly all t trough the passage, and had skulked — f-digniug sickness, &c. They were also ringleaders in all the unruly proceedings which occurred on board. Captain Stuart, of tne Tweed, deposed to the bud behaviour of the defendants. The majority of the crew gave a great deal of trouble, but the defendants were about the ■worst of the lot. On one occasion he (witmesS) and the officers went fonvnrd, at 2 o'clock in the morning, and found the watch on deck asleep in their bunks. Chambers had distinctly refused duty, alleging as a cause that he could not get any sleep on account of the noise in the forecastle. Witness knew the man was to blame for encouraging passengers to come into the forecastle at all hours. Some time after that witness discovered that the cargo had been broached, and so he stopped the men's tobacco. From that time the -opposition was almost continuous. Some one or other of the crew was alivays on the sick list—on one occasion 12 men were on the sick list. The defendant Chambers was off duty for four days at a time. Witness ones took him some medicine prescribed by the doctor, and wa3 met by a direct refusal to take it on the part of Chambers, he stating insolently that he was not sick, and never had been sick. Finally the two defendants became so troublesome as to necessitate their separation from the rest of the crew. . They were therefore confined in the mate's cabin, and the mate shared witness's quarters. W. H. Hcllyer, second officer of the Tweed, deposed that the conduct of both defendants from the very outset of the pas sage was simply scandalous. Except directly refusing duty, they did everything they could to impede the progress of work on board. Chambers was the worst of the two. Witness corroborated much of the Captain's evidence, and added that on one occasion, an hour after the watch had been called, he found the two defendants asleep in the forecastle. They were in his watch.

E,. F. Randall, chief officer of the Tweed, substantiated a great deal of what the second mate had affirmed. In reply to the Bench, he was of opinion that the defendants were very ordinary seamen indeed. Was present when the Captain and officers went into the forecastle and found the starboard watch asleep.^ The men were very dilatory, and the ship in consequence had lost sails. A part of the foresail was blown away on one occasion.

Dr Cunningham deposed to being doctor of the Tweed, and had been called upon to examine the defendants. The man Burke first caine_ under his hauds, but he could make nothing of his symptoms ; they did not indicate any definite disease. He prescribed for him, but in a day or two cauie to the conclusion that he was malingering. Chambers came under his treatment afterwards, and with a similar result. He never met with two clearer eases of malingering. Upon being called upon for their defence, Chambers, who throughout the proceedings had maintained a most insolent and defiant attitude, said that he had been ill, and turned to as soon as he was better. They were treated badly, and had been confined in the mate's cabin for 32 days, until their health had suffered—the cabin not being ventilated. The defendant Burke made a similar statement, and said he was compelled to challenge the Captain to bring the case before the court, for they were kept in confinement for five days after the ship arrived in port. ;

The Bench thought that rather strange, and also that the circumstance of two men being under arrest was not reported to the Commissioners when they boarded the ship. Captain Stuart replied that it was late when the Commissioners came on board, and everything was so hurried that he qiiite forgot the circumstance. With regard to the men being confined in a badly-ventilated cabin, the assertion was false; there was plenty of air, and the men were well fed, but they certainly were kept close to prevent them communicating with the single ■Women:' •.'-•..

This closed the case ; but Mr Joyce observed that there was another charge against the prisoners, whicli.the Beach could perhaps hear before passing sentence.

The Bench concurred, and then the same men were arraigned on a charge of embezzling ship's cargo and stores in the shape of preserved milk and sardines.

3?he charge was conclusively sheeted home to them, and the Bench delivered judgment. For the first offence each defendant was sentenced to one month's imprisonment and hard labour, and for the second,, to two months' imprisonment with hard labour. .Thank you, said Chambers, as he was leaving the dock, and then he burst out laughing and made an insolent remark to the Captain. JThe Bench, recalled him, and explained how Tie had been guilty of contempt of Court. He received the accusation with the utmost indifference, and refusing to apologise, was ;accommodated with a further tsrm of confinement amounting to 14 days. He did not laugh on leaving the dock the second time. Another Skulker.—H. M Gunderson, also belonging to the ship Tw«ed, was • charged by the Captain with wilful neglect •of duty.

The evidence adduced was very similar to Ih-at of the former cases, with the difference that the officers of the ship admitted the defendant's ability asa.seaman, but complained Oi his skulking inclination and attempts to --evade duty. He had been very troublesome, .-arid was on tks sick list more than once. He was described as a fair-vl c ither sailor, who vwas never, to be found when wanted during a igale of wind. Dr Cunningham deposed "to the man being a shammer.,, Had given, the 'Witness more trouble than either of the <others. ' - '' .

The defendant had nothing to offer in his •'defence, and was sentenced to four weeks' •imprisonment, with hard labour. :

Breach of the Licensing Act.—William IM'Laughlin, the landlord of the George iHotel, was charged by the Police with ha\-->ing sold liquor <*n the Sabbath Day to others -than travellers. He pleaded Not Guilty, and -was defended by Mr Mansford. Nicholas Stanley deposed, that he was aa immigrant "by the ship Tweed. On Sunday last be, •with, a friend, went to the George Hotel and called for two glasses of brandy, paid ior, .and drank them. No questions were asked, and nothing wa3 said as to them being tra•vellers;' 'Ahey were shown into a backroom, -and there had the drink—some five glasses .altogether. : They left the hotel about three *©'clock. Did not think he was quite sober "when he went into the hotel; did not recollect leaving the hotel,; remembered nothing until he found . himself lying on the floor of the Police Station. He had nothing to eat whilst at the George Hotel. W. Macara, also an immigrant by the Tweed, corroborated Stanley's evidence. He (witness) had, however, gone to the house before Stanley, with several others. They went into the front room, and presently, the landlord came in and muttered something about being travellers. To this they replied that they having just come from home," had travelled far enough in all conscience. Stanley was not present then, but he afterwards came in and drank with witness. They did not repr<sent themselves as travellers or anything particular, but just went in and sat down.

Mr Mansford said that the charge was laid under the 33rd clause of the Licensing Act, which defined Sunday trading as far as publicans were concerned. He read the clause, and then averred that the persons who had been served were travellers, having come from beyond the sea, and having no home on shore had naturally gone to a pub-lic-house. The question of who they were had been put by the landlord, and had been distinctly replied to. Moieover, his client was moat particular on that point. In reply to the Bench, the defendant said that he never served a drunken man, even if lie knew that he was a traveller. He remarked upon the obscurity of the charge in question, and would like to be informed what constituted a traveller. The clause was a regular snare to publicans. In delivering judgment, the Bench expressed satisfaction at the action taken by the police, but at the same time did not think that a case had been m; de out. Perhaps too much refreshment had been taken, still one of tiie witnesses had admitted that the question as to their being travellers.had been put by the defendant. The case would liave to be dismissed.

Another Case.—G. Morrel, landlord of the liailway Hotel, v/as arraigned on a similar charge, and pleaded Not Guilty. N. Stanley, the witness in the last case, again gave evidence, and showed how twelve of the Tweed's immigrants had gone into the hotel on Sunday, and had been served with beer jill round. No questions were asked, i Cross-examined : Witness admitted to being the last of the party to enter the house. The party had called at another hotel before that, and had had two battles of brandy there. * Counsel for the defendant said tiie witness's evidence was unreliable. He had evidently been drinking before he went to defendant's house. His client would like to make a statement.

The Bench concurring, the defendant proceeded to tliathohad do doubt about the people being travellers when they entered the house, for a woman and two children were with them, and one of the men asked about dinner ; one of them carried a carpet bag. lie (witness) was most careful at all times not to break the law.

Tue Beach thought the case of the prosecution was weaker than the last one; evidence was certainly weaker. The Bench was of opinion that the law against serving liquor on Sunday only meant to apply to residents of a place—people who were well known.

Sergeant Neil remarked that .that decided the question. Immigrants in ships lying in the harbour might come ashore and drink as much as. they liked on a Sunday. He should like thab point to be made thoroughly clear. The Bench thought th«it immigrants from home were decidedly travellers, and might be served with refreshments. The cass against Morrel would be dismissed.

Another charge of a similar character against Thomas Dodson, of the Provincial Hotel, in which Stanley again figured as a witness, was also dismissed.

TmtKATKNixu Language.—O. Wight was charged by J. MidrUeton with making use of threatening language to him, thereby provoking a breach of the peace. Mr Mansford, who appeared for the plaintiff, asked for an adjourn meat, in order that an important witness might beprocixred ; and the case was accordingly adjourned to Friday next.