MAYOR'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2831, 15 March 1872, Page 2

MAYOR'S COURT.

This Day. (Before E. F. Ward, Esq., J.P., and James Brown, Esq., J.P. DRUNKENNESS. Margaret Cochrane was fined ss, and < ’hades Donnelly, 20s, or 48 hours’ imprisonment. OFFENCES AGAINST THE BYE-LAWS. Joseph B. J. Macgregor, for refusing to pay toll at Green Island, was fined IDs and costs ; Matthew Scott, driving horses without sufficient reins, 2s 6d and costs ; Peter Mackin, Joseph Renton, Thus. Borland, Andrew Wood, Patrick Cooney, and Michael Groydou, keeping piggeries, 2s 6d and costs. Information against Thomas Pledger, for building without a license, and John Millar, neglecting to clean premises, were dismissed, the latter case because Mr Millar proved that he was not the owner of the property now. —Charles Bills was charged with a breach of the cab regulations, in failing to deposit with the Town Clerk an overcoat left in his cab by a passenger. The offence was admitted, but the evidence was contradictory as to the defendant’s intention. Two witnesses proved that he had made frequent enquiries as to the owner; while Sergeant Anderson stated that when Heads (Bills’s employer) was spoken to, he at the tim' wearing the coat, he said Bills told him it was his own, but Heads >u the box denied this. As the case was brought more with a view to having the regulation made public, a nominal fine of Is and costs was imposed. Three employees of the Distillery Company were charged with allowing the Waterworks Company’s water to run to waste. JS o neglect was proved, as the evidence went to show that in all probability the cock had been turned on by some mischievious people, and that it had been since boxed in. Mr Haggitt, who appeared for the defendants, said these facts were made known to the Company from whom it was understood the cases would be withdrawn, but the Inspector had declined to do so. Sergeant IN" ini on, said in justice to Mr Dick, he ought to state that that gentleman never interfered with summonses, but left matters similar to the present to the Mayor, his Worship being out of town he (the Sergeant), had no power to withdraw the case. Mr Haggitt thought the Company should have used more discretion in the case of a consumer of water, whose rates amounted to L7O a year Mr Ward: But the Waterworks Company are pretty well known, I think. MAINTENANCE. Mary Fairhank v. H. Fairbank was an information under the Married Woman’s Protection Act. An order for the protection of future required property was made in in favor of the complainant; their Worships deciding that a fresh application would have to be made for maintenance. The defendant offered to pay 10s a week and give the complainant sufficient furniture to enable her to set up house, The parties left the Court, it being understood a settlement would probably be made.