RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2479, 26 January 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R,M.) CHARGE OK LIBEL. Regina v. G. B. Barton. —Mr Haggitt with whom was Mr James Smith, for the prosecution; Mi; Macassey, instructed by Mr Kenyon,' for the defence. Mr Macassey applied for a further adjournment of the case for a week with a yjew fo a further adjournment for a month to be applied for next week, ' The object of the present adjournment was to give time to secure the presence of Mr Gisborne, and some of the officers connected with the Telegraphic Department, and also of some gentlemen not at present in the Colony. He should be able to show the extreme importance of the presence of those gentlemen in the preliminary inquiries, and lie understood that Mr Haggitt would not oppose the application.

Mr Haggitt would not object to the adjournment for one week or eight days, but at the expiration cf that time he should object to any further adjournment. He understood his learned friend’s object was to subpoena witnesses to prove justification: in fact to endeavor to go into the truth of the Jibe}, fo sfipw by the evidence of the officers of the Telegf’apfi Department that the words of the libel wpre true.' At the expiration the term of the adjournment, on behalf of the Crown ho should go into the evidence against the defendant and make out a prhna' facie case, and was prepared to contend that his Worship ought not to grant any further adjournment on flip ground that it was entirely beyond his Worship’s power to go into the evidence of justffieation, and therefore a further adjournment would be an unnecessary waste of time, Mr Macassey was surprised at the declaration just made by Mr Haggitt, as he understood him to say he had no objection to the case being adjourned for a mouth, on being mentioned in Court every eight days. Had it not been on that understanding, he jhould not have mentioned the application. Hi» Worship was specially empowered to grant the applic tion, under the Justices of the Beage Act, fp take evidence for the defence. The evidence talien in that Court yyqqld gp before tire.grand whatever object it might tend to serve would no doubt influence the grand jurors in their decision fin the case. After some further explanation, the case was adjourned for one week. ASSAULTS. Alexander v. Rogers,—Mrs Alexander, who lives within two doors of Mrs Rogers in Filleul street, complained that, in consequence of she knew not what passing between her little girl and the defendant, the hitter threatened to visit her with a beating. Mrs Alexander, to protect the child, threatened Mrs Rogers with a summons, whereupon that lady took up a stick, threw it at her, and grazed her chin with it, besides giving her a volley of very uncomplimentaiy words. Mrs Rogers brought a witness to

prove that the assault took place on the 17th, and not the 18th, as stated in the information. The case was dismissed. Clark v. Munro, and Muuro v. Clark, charges o£ assault, were dismissed. No appearance. ,