Magisterial.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 192, 23 December 1868, Page 3

Magisterial.

«, CHRISTCHUKCH. This Dat. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., R.M.) j Vagrancy.— Phcobe Chadwick and D.Dyel were brought up in custody, charged with a breach of the Vagrant Act. Sergeant Jeft frey said he knew the male prisoner, who was constantly about with prostitutes, and in the company of women M [brothels. Up tc three months ago, he had been, 'in, .regular employment, but since then had donenothing, and evidently lived on the earnings of the female prisoner, with whom he cohabited.' They had lived together in several houses, one of which was taken in the male prisoner's name and several known prostitutes had resided with them. The female prisoner waß originally on the streets, but since male prisoner went to reside with her the had discontinued the practice, and provided accommodation for others of her class. The male prisoner had been seen about the streets at all hours of the night, and had certainly done no work for over two months. Witness had cautioned him several times, when he replied that he had been at work at several places, but on enquiry this proved to be incorrect. There had been great complaints about the house kept by the prisoners. Constable Connor corroborated the main points of this evidence. Mary Ann Blacke, a prostitute, who had resided with the prisoner, and had been in the habit of taking men to the house, said the male prisoner had not done any work during the past three months, but had lived on the proceeds of the house. He had several times absented himself for a few days, but it was only to make it appear as if he had been in employment. On these occasions he generally went to Lyttelton, where he remained with a man named Swindle, who in turn visited the prisoners at their own house. Mary Ann Greenwood, also a prostitute, gave corroborative evidence, and said herself and last witness had paid £2 per week each for the accommodation provided to them by • the prisoners. Hetty Barnes, a girl of the same class, said she had been asked by the male prisoner to go and live at the house, but had refused. Sergeant Pardy said the girls who had resided with the prisoners had several times complained of the treatment they had received from them. The male prisoner, in defence, said when he commenced living with the female prisoner he had a sum of money, which, with casual work he had done, had supported him. He had never been cautioned, as stated by the police, and positively averred, that he had! been in the employment of the man Swindle tor upwards of a week. At hi* request the latter was called as a witness, but did not answer, and prisoner then requested to be set at liberty, when he would at once leave the place and go to regular work. The female prisoner declined to make any statement. His Worship said there could be no doubt that the male prisoner was guilty of what had been laid to his charge, but he did not wish to convict him for a first offence, and as he had promised to leave the place, he would be liberated. His Worship, however, reprimanded him severely upon the disgraceful nature of his conduct, and cautioned him not to return to it, or he would undoubtedly be very severely dealt with. His Worship also severely censured the female prisoner, but said as her accomplice had been discharged, he did not like to imprison her. If, however, she was brought up again, she would be dealt with as an old offender of the worst class.