RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 367, 3 October 1868, Page 6

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, 28th September. (Before J. Giles Esq., EM.) ASSAULT. John Trafford, a prisoner, was charged with assaulting the gaoler. An application by the prisoner, for an adjournment till next day, on account of his being in an unfit state to conduct his defence, through his not taking any food, being unobjected to, was granted. USING BAD LANGUAGE.. James Kennedy Sloane, appeared on an information laid by the Inspector of Police, charging him with swearing and using obscene language in a public place. Constable George Eooke stated, that he was proceeding up Wharf Street on Saturday afternoon, and saw defendant superintending the pile driving. When lowering the pile, he heard the defendant make use of very bad language, in fie hearing of himself and several other persons. He was annoyed and disgusted by the language. Crossexamised by defendant—l dont know whether sea-captains are in the habit of swearing when things go wrong. I have not been dogging you about lately. Inspector Pranklyn, said he would not call other witnesses, as they were employed by the defendant. The defendant called Robert Densmore,, and Mr Murry, whose evidence however was unimportant. James Weston also an employe, stated that if the chain had broke at the time refered to, some of the men would have got hurt. The defendant was excited and swore, but he could recollect the exact language. Cross-examined by Inspector Pranklyn. I don't know that an oath has ever prevented a chain from breaking. Magistrate : —I shall not take that, as evideuce. It would require a blacksmith or other skilled witness to show that.

The defendant admitted being excited at the time, but had no reccollection of using bad language. The Magistrate said the object of the clause in the Constabulary Act, under which the present information was laid, was to protect decent people, from hearing obscene and disgusting language in the streets. No doubt it was particularly meant to brawling in the streets, and not to a casual oath. At the same time the offence charged against the present defendant, did just come within the letter of the clause, though barely so. He could not therefore dismiss the charge altogether, but should inflict a nominal fine of Is. LAKCENY. John Rafferty was charged under two informations, laid by J. L. Calder, and Henry Payne, with stealing bottles. He was defended by Mr Tyler. Detective Lambert said, that on Saturday last, acting on the search warrant produced, he went to defendants tent, accompanied by the two informants, and Sergeant "Williams, and there found, in a keg at the back, some lemonade bottles, three of which the informants identified as being those belonging to Calder, having a private mark upon them. The bottles produced were those identified. He then arrested him, on a charge of staeling the bottles. Went afterwards to Mr O'Connor's factory, and Mr O'Connor gave him another bottle branded in the same way, which he had bought from the defendant. Mr J. W. Calder, Cordial manufacturer, was examined at some length respecting the custom of the trade, in supplying publicans, and receiving bottles in exchange. He identified the bottles produced as being his property. In cross-examination however, he admitted having several times supplied lemonade to the defendant who had given him bottles in exchange, and as to the bottles produced in court, he could only positilely swear that they were originally, his property. So long as he got empty bottles in exchange for the full ones sold, he was not particular as totheir being his own particular bottles. Henry Payne's evidence was of a similar character. It appeared he had supplied defendant occasionaly with lemonade, receiving sometimes empty bottles in exchange, and he might have given him lemonade in Calders marked bottles.

Mr O'Connor, also having been examined, Mr Morey, Publican, and Mr Sheahan Publican, were called with the view to show, that defendant was in the habit of going behind the bars of hotels, and taking away bottles, but their evidence was not materially to the point. This having closed the case for the prosecution, his Worship said, he would not trouble Mr Tyler to make any defence, the evidence adduced being too weak to substantiate the

charge. The defendant was accordingly discharged.

• ■ civil cases. ~ The only civil case, was that of G-ibson & Beatie v. Johnston, in which Mr Tyler, on behalf of the plaintiffs applied for an adjournment on account of the absence of a material witness, for whose appearance a subpoeua had been taken out, which, however had not been served.

The defendant objected to a adjournment, as he wanted to leave for Auckland, nevertheless the hearing of the case was adjourned to Wednesday next. Tuesday, 29 Seqtember. (Before J. Giles Esq., E.M.) ASSAJLT by a prisoner. John Trafford, a prisoner, was charged with assaulting James Coulahan, a Warder of the gaol, on Friday the 25th, and on the morning of Tuesday the 29th instant. According to the evidence of Coulahan, it appeared, that on taking the prisoner's blankets to his cell on Friday evening and requesting him to get up and make his bed, the latter refused, and a scuffle ensued between them during which the prisoner seized hold of Coulahan's whiskers and so held on until obliged to let go. He also com. mitted another assault that morning. Having refused to wash himself he had to be carried out and washed by force, and while doing his duty in that way Coaluhan was struck by the prisoner a violent blow on the mouth which had the effect of loosening some of his teeth. This witness, evidence was confirmed in all material points by that of another warder who was present at the time. John Leathern, examined, said be was in the gaol on the evening of the 25th and saw Coulahan carry soaie blankets into the prisoners cell and ask him to get up —prisoner told him to go to the d , and witness then heard a scuffle and heard Conlahan ask Trafford to let go his whiskers. This witness was cross-examined by the prisonea with a view apparently to show that partality was exhibited in the treatment of the prisoners, but was stopped by his worship who remarked that he was not sitting there to try the general treatment, and that if prisoners had anything to complain of they should complain to the visiting justice. Prisoner —very little good that womld be lam afraid. Magistrate : —Well you must confine yourself now to the case before the Court.

John Jones and George Anderson was called and gave evidence of similar character to that of the last witness. All the witnesses were perseveringly cross-examined by the prisoner without however any portion of their evidence being shaken, and in reply to questions put by him, they declared they knew of his being occasionally punished with solitary confinement, but had never seen him struck or ill treated by the gaol officials. A fellow prisoner named Thomas Noolan was exanmined for the defence but without anything material to the case being elicited. On being asked if he had anything to say in his defence, the prisoner made a long statement, to the effect that he had been provoked to commit the assault by being called an " old lag," and other abusive epithets by the gaoler in'l warders, who had also otherwise ill treated him. Near the conclusion of his harangue, the prisoner apparently became so overpowered by excitement that he had to stop, and sit down until revived by a glass of water. In sentencing the prisoner to two months additional imprisonment, the Magistrate observed that if it had been clearly shewn that the assaults had been purely premeditated, he should have sent the case to be dealt with by a higher Court, instead of passing a summary judgment. He also thought it right to observe that, as a visiting Justice of the Peace, he often visited the gaol, and prisoners having any complaint to make, had therefore frequent opportunities to do so.

CIVIL CASES. The Superintendent v. Evans—This was a claim of £35 for maintenance of defendant's children since April last, at the rate of, £l2 per month. Judgement confessed. Wm. Ancell v. Rooke—A disputed claim of 18s 6d. Plaintiff non-suited. Metcalfe v. Brown—Claim £lO 7s, of which £5 5s was paid into Court. Mr Tyler appeared for the plaintiffThe latter, on heing sworn, said that he had been engaged some weeks ago by the defendant, at a salary of £3 per week, but had recently been dismissed at a moment's notice without any fault being found with him. by defendant, further than his saying that the plaintiff was not pushing

[enough as a drapers assistant, aiul that he declined to " stick it on " in the way of asking purchasers extreme prices. In addition to a weeks wages, he claimed £2 for expenses he had been put to in consequence of the de. fondants not paying hiin what was due. Judgment was given for £3 in addition to tlie money paid into Court, and, costs.