RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2044, 23 November 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before J. Fulton, Esq., R.M.) FURIOUS DRIVING. William J. Dyer was charged with this offence. Three witnesses gave evidence to the effect that the defendant had driven a horse and buggy through Caversham at a furious rate, and to the great danger of the inhabitants; but none of them could agree as to the rate at which he was driving, one of them alleging that the horse was going up hill at the ra e of 20 miles an hour ; while another thought it was only going at a smart gallop. The evidence was that the ho so had become unman igeable As it was a second offence, the defendant was fined 40s and costs. INFORMATIONS BY THE INSPECTOR OF ' '^UfEANCES. John Garden, for casting straw op the footpath, was fined 5s and costs.—Charles Hed s, for riding on the footpath in Market street, was fined 2s 6d and costs.—Charles Young, for n -gle ting to keep his premises c ean, was fined 10s and costs.—Charles Clayton and James Baker, for driving drays without the owner’s name being painted thereof, were each fined Is—Richard Baton, for a lowing a mare to stray, was fined 2s 6d and costs. A charge preferred agaiugt Qeorge Caroline, for neglecting to keep premises clem was adjourned until Thursday, A charge pref ned against George Murray for eg 1 ecting to repair a drain, was dismissed with a caution.—John Roberts, for driving a dray without being licensed so to do, was ined os. ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT. James G- - nt was cliarg d with Jhaving, < & he 4th October, embezzled the sum of 6 6 1, the property of his employer, Wm. T. Bowden; Vir Stewa t for defendant. The evidence given by £b.e prosecutor was of the most vague description - .' and the case broke lown before it had fair y commenced. Detective Thomson, who conducted the case, remarking that it was purely a matter for proceedings on the civil side of the Court. It will be remembered that last week Bowden figured in the civil -ide of this court as pla ntiff in an action against one W. Mudie, and then the defend; at gave evidence against him. Grant had bperi in prosecutor’s employ as clerk and collector and'in 'that capacity had collected debts frojjj customers, For’several small sums r oeived it was alleged- he had not accounted ; and it was in respect to one of these sums ho was now charged. The prospeutor’s books were produced, but he not being ftblp to read, coul t say nothing as to their contents, AMr Douglas, who has recently audited them, gave some explanation about the defendant having once charged one of the prosecutor’s customers, then received payment of his account and failing to account tor 6s of the amount—but the way he arrived at this conclusion was unintelligible to all but himself. The defendant was discharged.