MAYOR’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2645, 9 August 1871, Page 2

MAYOR’S COURT.

Tins Day. (Before bis Worship the Mayor.) DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. George ,W. Brown, Arthur Owen, and Henry Lirdly, were each fined ss. William Cummings and Donald M’Kcchnie were each fined 40s. with the alternative of three days imprisonment. FURIOUS RIDING. Jas. Donogherc, a well-known individual, who used to create some amusement in his character of sweep, was charged with ,this offence. It appeared from the evidence of Sergeant Baxter, that the prisoner had ap propriated the hj -rse of a man under the influence of liquor, and once on its back, amused himself by galloping up Stafford street, to the great danger of pedestrians. H is worship said the prisoner should pay for his pi auks, and fined him L 5, which was paid. INSULTING LANGUAGE. Alonzo Grennardwas charged with having on the 2nd instant used insulting language towards one Susannah Ensor. Mr Catomore defended. The complainant stated that she was a married woman, and resided in the Club Reserve, Stafford street. She knew the defendant for some time. He knew her through having stopped with her aunt at the Scandinavian hotel. On the evening on the 2nd, between eight and nine o’clock, she was proceeding up Stafford street on her way home, when she was accosted by the defendant, who said “go d evening” to her. She took no notice of him ; but passed on. He came up to her and took hold of her hand, repeating his salutation, which she replied to. On requesting him to let her baud go, he asked her if her husband was up country,’ she replied in the negative ; and again passed on. He ran after her, and on overtaking her caught -hold of the front of her dress repeating his question with reference to her husband. She replied that he worked at Green Island. Accused asked her how often he came home ; and she replied three or four times a-week. He theu asked her to name a night when he could go to her, and that shejwould admit him. Sheasked him how he dared say such a thing ; and informed him that she would not be alone as her sister-in-law would be with her; he theu stated lie would not come alone; but would bring - someone with him. She replied that he should do no such thing. He then placed his baud upon her nose, and. told her never “to breathe,” as the thing was sure to come home to him if she did. She went down at oute and informed her sister-in-law of what occurred. Her husband did not come home till Saturday. On that day accused came to her house, and asked her husband to forgive him, (The Sjih-Insiiector here observed that he knew the complainant to be a highly-respcctable woman.) By Mr Catomore : Accused ucvc r

used insulting He had met her in thflsteSCt freqvfefttly—that was when he was di ivjug lus express and lifted his hat to her. /She RWore posi A tively that it was Gremian who%3poketo her on the night in question. He'bad twice offered to apologise ;he told her 'he knew nothing about it—that if it occurred, it was through drink. He never offered to apologise solely on condition that he did as alleged He had taken a little drink, but was not drunk. She did not think he would have done what he had if he had been sober. Sub-Inspector Thompson said Grennan came to him that morning, and expressed Ins sorrow for what had taken place, which he said was caused by drink. In answer to Mr Catomore, witness said Grennan did not state he was ready to apologise if he.had committed the offence. ‘ His Worship said that it mattered very little whether of not the offence was caused by drink. It was ;i a monstrous thing that a respectable woman could not travel one of the most populous streets of the. City, without running the risk of‘being insulted by a person, who apparently moved in a respectable position. He felt that he should not be doing his duty—no matter whether the defendant was slightly intoxicated, or had apologised or not—if he did not mark the sen e of the Court upon a case like the present — Defendant : I totally deny being there. His Worship was determined o protect the public in such a a case, as far as he possibly could, as long as he held his seat on the Bench. He had not the slightest doubt the story of the complainant was correct; her evidence was given in a thoroughly straightforward manner. The defendant would be lined in the fullest,penalty allowed by the Act, viz., LlO, with the alternative of three mouths’ imprisonment. ‘