POLICE COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 535, 6 August 1880, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

MASTERTON, THURSDAY. [Before H.SWARDEU,, Esq., R-M. J. Livingstone v A. McLend, Judgment Buinmous|Llll6s 2d. Mr Skipper for plaintiff. Order made, W. L. Dorset v James Farmer.—Debt Ll6 Is 6d. Mr Bunny for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and costs 353, and counsel's fee 21s. W. M. Easthope (pro Trustee in Rocket's estate) v O. Jacobsen, L4l7s. Judgment for amount and lis costs, R. Wilsone v'P. H. Hickson. -Rates LI ss. Judgment for amount and costs, Same vG. Mackay.--Rates Ls< Judgment for amount and costs., T. Parsons vW. H. Hickson.-Debt L4O and interest. Mr Beard for plaintiff. Judgment for L4315s and 37s csata, and 63s counsel's fee. . A. Clifton v A. Weatbrook.-—Debt, Ll2 Bs. Mr Beard for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and costs. E..H. Watts v William Watson -Debt L 5 18s 9d. Judgment for amount and costs; 19s. G. 0. Palmer v G. Mackay-Debt L2 2s. Judgment forainount and costs. ' J. Evans-v J. H. Oorbett.—Debt L 6, Mr Beard for plaintiff, Mr Skipper for defendant. Judgment for Ll. lis and. oosts. A. Clifton vS. Groves.—Debt L 36. Mr Beard for. plaintiff. Judgment for L34,30s coats, and counsel's fee 635. Several other debt cases wert beard, and either settled out of, or paid into, Court. The Court adjourned until 10 this morning, when the case of T. L. Thompson v S. Gates-Debt Ll lis Bdand a Maori assault case, in which we believe there are seven defendants-all women—and 30 witnesses, will be adjudicated. Registrar of Dogs v D. Marshall- Unregistered dog. Case ordered to stand over for a fortnight, Same v J. Ewington.-Wifchdrawn on payment of costs and registration fee, Same v J. H. Oorbett.—Same Same v H.. C. Hanson. -Same. Same v F. Joiner.-Same. Same v W. Green.-Same. , Same v E. Wrigley.-Case dismissed, five shillings expenses being allowed to defendant., Sergeant'McCardie v John Livingstone. -Drunk arid disorderly, on the 20th July. Fined 5s and costs. Same v F. Joineh -Withdrawn. Inspector of Nuisances v P. Hourigan. —Driving:, without lights after sunset through a'publio street "in Masterton on Augusts. Fined 10s and costs. Sergeant McOardle v A, D, Cowan, P. Cowan,. J. M. Girdlestone, George Bentley, James Bentley,". and Robert Andrews.-Charged on 25th July with uulawfully : creating a ' disturbance in Queen-street, Masterton; • I. Sergeant MdCardle deposed; On Sunday morning, 25th inst., I was on duty in Queen-street at 1 a.m.; I heard some laughing/and noise; I observed some persons standing together by the corner of the Post Office. I told them that at that time on Sunday morning they should not congregate in the street; they seemed to laugh at me, and I went on towards the Empire Hotel; when I' returned they were still there, and I took their names and told them I would summons them ; I think that there were one or two who walked away.when I first spoke; complaints have been made to' the police of parties congregating in "the streets on Sunday morning. _ln answer to the Court: The conversation appeared to be of an ordinary character ; the noise was, in my opinion, sufficient to disturb the inmates of the adjoining houses. *

In answer to Mr Girdlestone;' It was a fine moonlight night; I passed other people talking on the street opposite the Club Hotel was said to me by the defendants of an offensive character, though I heard a derisive laugh after' I turned away; I did not see Mr Wrigley there; I said to you that you had no right to disturb the Postmaster; I saw two men on the opposite side of the street the worse'fbr liquor, and they went away when I spoke to them; I cannot say whether you were drunk or sober; I Bwear that it was one o'clock in the morning; I saw you.there for five or ten minutes. - •

In answer to the Court: I took steps against the defendants because they were disturbing the public peace, not because I heard a-derisive laugh. In answer to Mr Girdlestone: Mr Bagge told me that he was nob disturbed that uitjht.'. Constable Fleming gave corroborative evidence to that of Sergeant. McCardle. lnanswer to Sergeant McCardle: There was no cause for taking their names down. In answer to Mr Girdlestone 1 1 did see some person's talking on the Club Hotel verandah:; lam certaiu.itwas not those whowerS laughing; the-defendants were talking-very loud; I did not hear what they were talking about. . In.as.Bwer:to the Court: lam of the opinioirthat'the.inoise was sufficient to disturb people in their houses. Mr Girdlestone informed.the Court that the time was arquarter past twelve, and they were stopping chatting. It wds a beautiful moonlight niijht— such a one when it was a shame to go home. G. Coker, called for the defence, said: lam custodian, of the Union Club; I closed the Club that night between ten minutes and a quarter, past twelve; Mr Mr Girdlestone and several of the other defendants left the Club in a state of sobriety ; my house is about two chains from the corner, and had there been any disturbance I should have heard it. R. G. Williams was standing with three others at the Club Hotel verandah from ten ! minutes past'twelve till a quarter past one; he heard no disturbance at the corner. B. Wrigley was present at the corner; Mr Girdlestone and he met the Bentleys there, and stopped to talk a few minutes; there was no noise or loud.talking; Sergeant McCardle himself spoke louder than anybody else; he seemed rather excited. In answer to Sergeant McCardle witness added that the Sergeant asked them civilly to go away; he,had .heard the Councillors, who make the by-laws j. make far morelnoiseJalkingin the streets at night than the defendants were doing. J, lorns was the Club Hotel at the time referred to.■■■■•• Heard no disturbance at all at .the Tost Office corner. P. C. Frazi gave similar evidence. Mr Girdlestone and the Messrs. Cowan were te his knowledge perfectly sober. G. Bentley" gav«~ evidence of the same nature. # ,- - '.- ' Mr GirdlttToM asked the Court to lit

the police kuowjth,at they were" not justifiod.in interfering with persons in the street,who werVcreatiiig no disturbance. His Worshiped :■ I consider the conduct of the police in this matter strictly right and proper. The .evidence that has been called'for the defence does not appear to have seriously shaken the evidence of the complainant, , I ooufeis, too, that evidence given by men going home after 12 o'clock does not possess, in my mind, any great amount d. valuj».*»Aktheiiame" time,ldti riot consider there has been any desire to misinterpret, the facts of the case. Wheii'at that hour of the.night there was", a -crowd "which'' J Sergeaiit' McOardle considered to be likely ti) make a disturbance he was justified in calling their attention to the fact, and I think'the. parties ought to hayettaken the hint, j As' it was, they seemed to'have stood on their dignity. The charges -will be dismissed; with a reprimand., I wish it to be understood that it is the duty of the police 1 to "reserve order in the'top, j '.'■• Mr Uirdlestoue: Tour Worship hilds that there was a disturbance! i " His Worship: i hold "that the request of the constable ought to have been complied with, and that any loud conversation at that hour of the night, though not'a breach of the peace was a disturbance of the quiet orderliness which should prevail at such a time.- ... ;