MAYOR’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2251, 25 July 1870, Page 2

MAYOR’S COURT.

This Day. (Before I. f N. Watt, Esq., R.M., DRUNKENNESS. John Thomas and John Langham w f ere each fined ss. MINOR OFFENCES. Jane Mariot was charged on the information of Edward Peppercll, with having been guilty of conduct calculated to provoke a breach of the pcac-. This was a neighbor’s quarrel, arising from the fact of the parties living in a double bouse, having a very thin partition, the consequence being the one’s merits and demerits were canvassed in no very fiiendly manner by the other who overheard. This led to recriminations, and the threat by the defendant to do serious injury to the complainants wife. His Worship considered that the defendant had been somewhat provoked, and under the circumstances, inflicted a lighter sentence than he otherwise would, viz., 40s, with the alternative of a week’s imprisonment. The defendant on leaving the dock, said “ I’ll just make it a caution to him (complainant) when I come out.” Mr Watt: Bring that woman back (to defendant). You will be bound over to keep the peace. , Are you married? Defendant : I believe 1 am. Mr Watt: Do you not know whether you are ? Defendant (after a pause): At all events I have got some one to support me, w'hich is as good. Mr Watt; You will he bound over yourself iu a surety of L2O, and will have to find two sureties of LlO eaob, for your good behaviour for six months. If you do not find the sureties, you will be kept in goal for the six mouths. The defendant left the dock repeating that she would make it a caution to complainant. A r Watt : Bring her hack a<rain. I will not have these threats made in Court. The time will be twelve months now.

ALLtOHp THEFT. George Brown was charged with stealing a blanket and other articles. According to the evidence of the arresting constable, he met the accused in George street at halfpast two o’clock yesterday morning, carrying a bundle. He accosted him, and asked what were the contents of the bundle. The reply was that it contained a blanket and some socks. Op searching it, the constable found besides the blanket a number of towels and a lady’s chemise. He told the constable they were all his property, and that he had been assisted in packing the bundle by Mr Watson, of the Royal Hotel, Considering his statement unsatisfactory, the constable locked him up, Mr Bathgate, who appeared for tho defendant, admitted the facts as stated, but denied the felonious intent. The accused was a respectable and very hard-working man, and was at the present time engaged in Government contracts amounting to several thousand pounds. On Saturday "evening he had unfortunately taken to drinking, and when in a state of intoxication knew not what he was doing. Evidence as to good character was given by several witnesses, and the prosecutors in both instances stated they did not believe the things had been taken with any felonious intent. Mrs I’ricc, tho owner of part of the articles,

said the accused had lodged with her for live j ears. On a previous occasion, when under the influence of drink, he had walked away with some things, of which occurrence he afterwards had no recollection. His Worship discharged the accused, advising him to be abstemious in future.

BREACHES OF THE BYE-LAWS. James Taylor and Alexander Taylor were charged with building without giving the necessary notice. Both cases were dismissed oh payment of costs, his Worship intimating that in future similar cases would not be treated in that way. Edward M'Ewen was fined fss and costs for neglecting to clean his premises.

Mr Watt, before the Court rose, referred to our report of the cases of Carmichael v. Finch, and Finch v. Carmichael, heard before him on Saturday, and in which there is the concluding remark : —“After nearly an hour’s argument, the Bench discovered that the course of proceedings vas illegal, and dismissed both actions without prejudice.” There was an attempt, observed his Worship, made by the reporter to summarise the proceedings, but he could not have understood them, else he would not have made the above statement. The Bench were perfectly aware from the commencement that the proceedings were not legal, but were allowed by agreement between the parties. The proceedings fell through because counsel misunderstood each other as to the arrangement that had been made ; and if any technical objections wore made, the Court had no other course to pursue but to dismiss both actions without prejudice to the issue of fresh summonses.

The woman Mariot was afterwards brought into Court. His Worship said, as he understood she had two young children, he would modify her sentence The penalty originally imposed would remain, and she would be bound over to keep the peace for three months in a sum of LlO. The defendant said she preferred to go to gaol for a week.