RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1317, 31 July 1884, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

AS UL BURTON— To-day.

(Before H. C. S. Baddeley, Esq.,R,M.)

Breach of the Licensing Laws.—E. Tilling was charged with having obtained a bottle of whiskey for and on behalf of a person against whom a prohibition order was in existence. —Mr Crisp appeared for the defendant; Sergeant Felton prosecuted. Murray stated that ha had bought a bottle of whisky for Tilling. A man named Barrett was in bis father’s house. Ho believed that there was a prohibition order against Barrett, The whisky was partly drunk in the house. Did not see Barrett take any of the whisky.—lsabella Murray stated that she

was the witness.

mother of the previous Tilling drank some of the

whisky which her son brought into the

house. Did not see Barrett drink any of the whisky, Barrett had been drinking, and was in a state of drunkenness when he came to her house. As soon as Barrett became excited and 'quarrelsome witness tried to get him home. Never told Court ible Black that Barrett had drunk half a bottle of whisky.- (The Bench here remarked that Mrs Murray was apparently a hostile witness ) —Sergeant Feltonsaid the Ifitneas was deliberately stating an untruth and owing to a subpoena not having bean served on Barrett hg would ask for an adjournment. —Mr Crisp objected 00 the ground that the police had not given sufficient time to his client through their own negligence. His Worship said ho would renjiand tb© case until Friday week.

Drunkenness—Frank for being drunk, was fined 5a or 34 hours imprisonment.—Richard Johns, on remand for drunkenness and vagrancy, was suffering from an internal complaint, and ordered to the Old Home.

Unregistered Dogs —John McOauley. for having in his possession three unregistered dogs, was fined 30s, and costs 6s ; John Rutherford, for three dogs, was fined 30a and coats; G. W. Leadley, F, Ueßreton and P. Madden, for two dogs

each, were fined 20a and costa 14s each ; Samuel Thomas, Wm. Coster, H.Jordon, N Fitzgerald, G. McKenzie, G. Price and Thomas Jones, weae fined 10s each and costs. R. Ruddick, for one dog, was fined 20s and costs. A case against John Tate w s dismissed as the dog in question was only in the possession of the defendant one day. T. E. Mcßae was fined 30s and coats for having three unregistered dogs.

Breach ok Borough By-Laws—H. Jardon was charged with haring driven a horse and cart at a furious rate down East street, and the offence being proved, a fine of L 3 was inflicted with costs, 47a, in all L 5 7s. Child Desertion. —Carolina Smith was charged with neglecting to provide for her child, fourteen days old. Mr Branson appeared for the defence.—William Horsfall said he was a farmer and carrier living at Westerfield, The accused had been acting as housekeeper for witness. She left his house without telling witness anything of her intention. A child eleven days old was left with him, which he took charge of for four days,—By Mr Branson: The accused had been living with him as his mistress Did not dispute the fact that he was the father of the child. Had written the letters produced [Mr Branson read the letters which stated Horsfall’s intention to marry the defendant if she came back to live with him.] Had agreed to take the woman back as she had no faults. Did not lay the information because ho thought he could force] her to come back and live with him. Had signed the warrant and also the statement that he was willing to maintain Mrs Smith and her children as he had nothing against her. Mr Branson asked his Worship to make an order against the man Horsfall, as the child was his, and he should provide for it.—His Worship said he did not feel inclined to make any order against the accused. She deserved to be sympathised with, owing to the heartless conduct on the part of the father. The case would be dismissed, and he would advise Horsfall to take immediate steps to provide for his child. Threatening Language. Martin McClure was charged with threatening to take the life of his wife.—Mary McClure stated that the accused had threatened to destroy everything in the house, and had told witness that he intended to make New Zealand ring again with a case similar to Butler’s of Dunedin, who killed two woman. The accused had just returned from six months’ imprisonment in gaol for ill-treating her. She was afraid of her life and that of her children.—G. F. Scott said that he had heard Mrs McClure pleading for mercy from her husband. There were constant rows in the house, and the place was a nuisance to the neighborhood. The women was a hard-working person. By the accused: Had never seen any men about the house when accused was in prison. Never heard the accused threaten to take his wife’s life, but heard him make use of bad language.—Mrs Bartlett said that she had heard a great no so at the house on several occasions. The accused was very violent at times and abused hia wife.—Mary Jane Towne said that she saw the accused taking things out of the house and quarrelling with his wife.—By the accused : Did net hear him say that he would kill his wife. —Constable Smart deposed that he knew Mrs McCluie as a hard-working woman. The accused came back from gaol last Friday. He was the essence of a loafer, and although he did not drink he was extremely lazy, and did no work.— Mr E, G. Crisp stated that he had drawn up a deed of separation, but the accused had not signed it. —The accused, in defence, denied ever having threatened the life of his wife. He removed tho things from the house as he warned to go away. If he said one word, hia wife said twenty words back to him.—His Worship said that the case was a most serious one. No sooner had the accused come out of gaol than he aga ; n appeared before the Court on the same charge. Apparently six months was not a sufficient correction, as the accused was very aptly described as the essence ef a loafer. He would be sent to gaol for twelve months with hard labor.