RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 1892, 26 January 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAT. (Before W. Fbaseb, Esq., R.M.) DBUNKENNESS. Two persoms of the male persuasion were charged with the offence of drunkenness, both of them being incapable under the influence. They both pleaded guilty, and were fined each 10s, or 24 hours' imprisonment. •■--■ SUSPICION OF LUNACY. John Hoolahan was charged with being of unsound mind. The man had, Mr Bullen stated, been, apprehended at Ohinemuri. He (Mr Sullen)' had known the man for some time, and had during that time been of opinion that he was insane. He had been watched at Ohinemuri for two days, and had been arrested because he appeared to be worse. The man was committed to the Lunatic Asylum on the certificate of Drs Kilgour and Payne. A TASTI FOR PEACHES. ''-*'" . Henry Smith, Frank Kevie, William Grubb, and John Hindman were charged with stealing peaches from the /and of oneFrancis McCormick at Puru on the 17th instant, the value of the peaches stolen being ss. Mr Macdonald appeared for the defeadants, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Bullen stated the circumstances. The four boys had been caught in flagrante delicto on Sunday week last. Francis M'Cormick, dairyman, residing at Tararu, but having land at Puru, sworn, deposed :—That he recognised tbe four lads before the Courii—-he could swear to three, but :aot to Hindman, although to the best of his belief he was one. Saw those lads on his land at Puru on last Sunday week. They were breaking down the trees and taking away the peaches. Saw them do it. Cried to them to stand, but they ran away. Witness caught them. They said if witness let them off they would not come again. They had peaches in bags (four bags produced). There were two of those bags full. Smith showed witness the bags. The peaches were worth ss. but witness regretted most breaking down the trees, as he had to keep them good in terms of his lease. ;->; Cross examined by Mr Macdonald—Watched the defendants for about two hours prowling about the paddock. Did not see them taking the peaches found in the bags, but saw them pulling peaches. There was a thoroughfare through one of the paddocks, and witness caught them in that paddock. There was no fence on either side of the throughfare. This was prosecutor's case. ! Mr Macdonald contended that the offence did not come within the section indicated—there was no mention of orchard. Prosecutor was recalled, and said there was an orchard in each paddock. In answer to Mr Macdonald, McCormick said, the peach trees were in a paddock. : Mr Macdonald said the paddock was not an orchard. A few stray peach trees did not make an orchard. It was no quibble he contended for, but prosecutor said the paddocks were simply for his cattle, with a fence round to keep them in and others out. His Worship said if Mr Macdonald adhered to his objection, he would deal with the case under the" Larceny Act; a clear case of petty larceny had been made out. Defendants had gone about the business in a wholesale manner. Mr Macdonald replied. He said he did not. try to palliate the act of defendants, but he did not consider the charge proved. His Worship said he had a duty he owed to the public, and to the boys. If he did his duty to the public he .would send them to prison for six months, but he did not wish to send them to prison, as it might ruin their prospects. He wpnld order them to pay the value of the> : ''stolen fruit, and the costs of the case; and one shilling each. He did this because he did not want to punish their parents, who had apparently clothed them and educated them well. He would, however, wish it to go forth that in any case of the kind in future he would not deal with them so leniently. He would treat every enclosure as a garden or orchard, and any person charged with stealing peaches or other fruit, and it was. prove, a against him, would'be punished, with hard labor. :He hoped this would be a caution to them. " ''.. ' ASSAULT. . .'••■ .' John McLeod was called to answer a [ charge of assaulting one John Gorbetfc. Mr Brassey appeared for defendant (who did not appear), and said his client was one of the ■representative' volunteers, and he would ask that he be excused attendance as the firing for the championship commenced to-day. There was no intention of disobeying the Court summons. '"..,... Complainant, who had several marks about him, said the assault was entirely unprovoked. Defendant had knocked him down with a rifle. His Worship said if he had known the nature of the assault Be would have issued a warrant for defendant Mr Brassey said he would undertake to pay costs of defendant and his witnesses if the case were adjourned, The'

hearing of the case now would entail the presence of two other representatives besides defendant. The case was eventually adjourned till Monday, 9th February, on payment of costs by defendant. PBOTOKING LANGUAGE. Julia Nichol, alias Julia Kemp, wag charged with using provoking language towards one Margaret Burrow. Mr Brassey appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Margaret Burrow, wife of James Burrow, a miner, deposed to the particulars of the offence, the language being of the choicest description. During the recital defendant smiled a smole of repudiation. Mr Brassey said he was instructed to say that defendant had been out working at Dr Last's on the day named from eight o'clock in the morning until halfpast 6in the evening. He called.— Henry Kemp, husband of defendant, who swore to the going out and coming in of his wife as stated by Mr Brassey. Mr Brassey asked for an adjournment, but the Bench declined to grant it, as it was satisfied of the truthfulness of complainant's statement. • : His Worship said he wauld order defendant's husband and another to be bound over as sureties for defendant to keep the peace towards Mrs Burrow and everybody else for six months. Defendant said she wouldn't have it, because she knew she couldn't keep the peace. If she was bound over "that woman" would "'walk over" her. His Worship : Very well; then you will have to go to prison for six months. Defendant acquiesced, and was bundled off by a stalwart policeman, enquiring as she went of complainant " where was the kit of potatoes^her husband stole ? " His Worship suggested that defendant's manner might possibly convince her counsel that she was not such a very injured woman. The Court then adjourned.