RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3932, 23 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, September 22nd. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., RM.)

Drunkenness.— John Black; charged with: being drunk in Maclaggan street, his second: offence, -was fined 20s, in default three days' imprisonment. Archibald M'Lean, charged with a similar offence, was let off with a can tin n. Isabella Lyie was fined 40s, with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment. Larceny by a Servant, —Mary Harway, a quietly-dressed yoimg woman, was charged on the information of Elizabeth M'JSTeil, in whose employ she had been as servant, with haviDg, on the 17th September, at Mornington, stolen sundry articles of clothing and domestic use to the value 0f.13s 8d.... .Pri-.i soner, who had onlyVeen in the place a few; weeks, expressed her regret for what she had! done. His Worship -.You have confessed: to taking various articles belonging to your: mistress, valued at 13s Bd, and you now express your sorrow. A young woman of 24 should have been able to resist such temptations. You have only been in the Colony nine weeks/ and I am very: imwillmg to send yon to Gaol, where, perhaps, you may learn more. mischief. T by .-being, turned into "the company of thieves and prostitutes. Ycir certainly deserve some punishment for this ; but I must take other considerations into account, and will give you a chance. I will adjourn this case for two months upon your own recognisance of £5. at the end of which time you will appear here ; and if I hear a god account from the Police, you will be: leniently dealt with. ">

; House of 111 fabie.—lsabella Lyle, who had just received sentence tinr drunkenness, was fur! her charged, on the information of Constable Hartuetfc, with being tHe: occupier of a house frequented by persons having no lawful means of support. .'. Accused : I am. not the occupier. The Constable said that, on the 15th inst., about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, he heard a.disturbance.in what is known as Machin's right-of-way,.off Walker street, and reported the matter to Sergeant Anderson, who accompanied him to defendant's house ; and on knocking at the .door, Lyle o;>ened it, and told them to go in. Three other w.'men were present—AimMaeriamara. a notorious vagrant, Jane M'Leod, and Alice Halley, both prostitutes, and Thomas Hill, who had also been convicted for vagrancy. They were all under the influence of drink. On being asked who' was proprietress of the house, defendant said she was, and paid John Wilks £5 a. week for it. The house had Very little furniture in it, and consisted of two small-rooms. Accused : The .house contains four rooms. Sergeant Anderson pave similar evidence. He called on accused, a second time, when she' still affirmed the house was rented to hereby Wilks. John Wilks denied that Lyle was the occupier of his'house. He had' a lease of two houses in Walker street and two in the right-of-way—one of which was sublet, to M'Leod, with whom defendant lived. By the Bench: He-lived in a house of his own, ■; and sub-let others as brothels. His Worship: You make a trade of doiDg so. You are a cabinetmaker by trade, and turn this to account as a supplementary occupation. Well, it is right to tell you, you run some risk, and I am not quite sure whether a man, who has such tenants, canuot be pulled up; and sent to gaol for two months, and if the law wonld allow that, it would be a very proper award for such conduct, in my opinion. I have given you the hint, and hope you will profit by it. Constable Hartnett, rc-calied, said that when Wilks was served with the subpoena, he said he should tu>-n defendant out of the house, and she should not be his tenant any longer. His Worship (addressing Wilks) : There is certain suspicion attending you with regard to your evidence. This case will be adjourned for fourteen days, to have proceedings— habeas corpus —taken to bring Jane M 'L->od as a witness, and if she does not support your testimony, it will be my duty to take other steps in the matter. C'rrv Byk-Laav 'Infringements. —George Friend was fined in two sums, each of 5s and costs, for driving his horse through Green Island without having proper control over it, and for neglecting to carry a light on his dray after dark. J. Roberts was mulcted in a similar penalty for neglecting to clean his premises. Emily Duff and Thomas Fairbnnk were each fined 10s and costs, and Phillip Nf-wliury, Michael Cox, and James Derpe, | '20s with costs. For neglecting to clean their household premises, whereby uuisancts were ! caused. |

Vkxdi.vo ImpttrkMtlk.—Hector M 'Canl»in, dairyman, was charged, on Uie information of George Lamb. Revenue Officer, with having, on the 24th August, scld a quantity of milk, not pure. Defendant said he had not adulterated it himself. Informant said h'"s attention was drawn to some milk defendant was selling iv George street, and a sample of it was submitted to l?rof< ssor Black, Government Anulyist, who reported that it was a mixture of 77 parts pure nsilk and 23 jr.r's of water in the hundred, or iiMviy'onefonrth. It did not contain av-y delefccr'«i-s substances. His Wor.slrp pnjisivt! out th..fc defendant was entitled by the Act; to syil

milk and water, if he let the public knowits quality. His Worship said it was the first milk case that had been brought before the Court, and the circiimitraces not being of an aggravating character, he would dismiss it with a caution. He had no hesitation, however, in giving it as his opinion; that a quarter of water to the milk was to» much.

Bread Adulteration". — John Collie, baker, was summoned at the instance of the Revenue Officer for having, on the 15th inst - sold a French loaf, the sa"me not being pure and by reason of its impurity being delenous to health. Mr Barton defended. Infoimant said the case was laid under tJxes Bakers and Millers Act, 1871. Mr Barton : Pardon me, it is under the Adulteration Act, 1866. Lumb said he went to defendant's grocery store in Great King street on. the 15th inst., and purchased a French loaf of bread. Having stated his object to defendant, he told him if he chose he could himself send it to the laboratory for analysation, to make sure, there was no tampering with it by witness.. Be allowed witness to take it. Professor Black read his report after analysing the loaf.. He found considerable quantities of alumina and sulphuric acid Mr Lumb put some questions relatiys to the chemical qualities. of the loafs ingredients, but elicited such answers from the Professor as to show that he was confounding alum with alumina, and making other mistakes. The alumina should not have been found in the bread, and it was very appreciable. Subsequently to writing the report, he made a rigid examination ok the flour and salfc. Had he done this before, it would have led him to have modified his statements. The salt was. very bad, as ife contained sufficient sulphuric acid to fullyaccount for that found in the bread, besides lime, sodium, magnesium, &c. The Dunedin. water contained alumnia, and the clay was also a combination of alumina and silica. Oa examiningthe soluble part of the salt lie found no alumina, but on analysing the insoluble part he found silica...He did.nofc think defendant had necessarily adulterated the bread to cause these ingredients; they would have been caused by dust and water alone. Mr Barton made some comment?, without proceeding with a defence, and.submitted the case should be dismissed withbu-fc His Worship injuring the character of the accused by making remarks. The Magistrate considered Mr Lumb hadonlydone his duty in. layihgthese informations, butatthesametime there was no evidence of wilful adulteration, but to the contrary, it was proved that the bread could be adulterated without defendant's knowledge of it. He dismissed tie case without a word of censure. A. similar charge against Thomas Sinclair was witkdrawn.

Bakers and Millers Act.—John Bari-, baker, answered the information of George Lumb, charging him with. selling a loaf of household wheaten bread without a Roman: H stamped upon it, contrary^to the Act. MrBarton would not contest this case. Defendant admitted there was no H on the loaf, but it was through ignorance on his .part. For the future he would endeavour to comply with the provisions of the Act. Informant said that nine-tenths of the community of bakers were not aware of the regula^on. The Magistrate recommended him to make it known through the public prints, who, he had no doubt, would be grateful for the advertisements. There having been a case o£ this description before, he would, fine d&« fendant 10s and costs. ;

Cowardly Assault.—William Mason was summoned for assaulting J. Warock. in Elm Row. Defendant, who appeared to" have received no provocation, waa fined 103 and COStS. . • . . ...... .....;.