CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3183, 3 May 1873, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

This Day. (Before HU Worship the Mayor and T. M. Hpckeu, Esq,,-J>P.)

DjWWENNk?s. Bridget Katie,against whom there were forty-five previous couvic tious .for, various' offences, was fined '4os, with the option of fourteen days’ imprisonment, ’

Lakgknw, —Edward Robinson, a man . of color, charged with stealing, on or about 28ch February, one iron pump, the property’ of James Shields, Australasian Hotel, sentenced to six months’ iqiprisonipent, with hard labor. On the .charge of vagrancy proved against him on Tuesday, he was,sen to need to three months’ imprisonment;— Catherine Watson, on remand, was charged with stealing a petticoat, of the value of 10s, the property of Mr Charles Flexman. The case was proved on Tuesday last, but a remand was granted to enable the police to make inquiries as to prisoner’s previous character. From the inquiries made, it appeared that her character given was by no means favorable. The Bench stated that had her character been good they would probably have dismissed her, though the evidence disclosed great intent. However, as it was not, she would be sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment. Affiliation.— Catherine Murray charged William Kirk, of Otakia, with neglecting to contribute towards the support of his illegitimate child, aged three years. Mr M'Keay appeared for the complainant, Mr Wilson for the defendant.—Mr M'Keay stated that the complainant arrived in the country in 1869, and took a situation as domestic servant with o Mr Ford, where defendant was also servant. He remained there for three or four months, and an intimacy sprung up between the parties. He left in April following, but in May visited the complainant, and the birth of the child took p’ace nine mouths afterwards. As far as Lis client was concerned, he could show that, while in employment at Ford’s, she conducted herself with propriety, but when in defendant’s company, carried she on what might be termed courting. A letter from Oatuaru dated November, 1871, from the defendant to the complainant was read, in which he stated he was willing to contribute anything reasonable to |the support of , his child. Had he complied with this promise, complainant would have consented to let the matter stand, but as he did not do so, proceedings were taken. In all, she had received LI2 from him, though in presence of her brother and a Mr Murray, at Tokomairiro, he promised her L2O, and a like amount when he got to Oamaru, where He then resided. He also wrote in July, promising to settle the matter finally; but in November he disclaimed all former promises, and defied her to go into Court. The Ordinance required corroborative testimony, and what he (Mr M'Kay) would bring forth Was, that they had been seen walking together, and also defendant’s own acknowledgment embodied in the letters. He could also prove that the accusations made, that; complainant had had dbnnection with other men, were utterly untrue.—Catherine Murray deposed that she first became acquainted with the defendant on going to the Taieri as a domestic servant, shortly after her (witness’s) arrival in the Province in 1869. She took a situation with Mr Ford, where defendant was working as a ploughman. He left about six months after her going there, although he occasionally visited her. One of his visits was. in May, 1870, when bo took advantage of her, and on speaking to him subsequently he advised her to go to Dunedin. Shp game down, and was confined in the Hospital on the 23jf?d February following. He admitted he was the father of the child, and said he had to leave the Home country for a similar offence. Subsequently she summoned him at Tokomairiro, and received a letter saying' he could not come, as he was at Oamaru. She went to the Court-house, and, acting on advice, withdrew the case. He had Eromised her L4O, but she had only received ,12. She had supported the child, and paid 10s per week for eighteen months, and'Ba since. She was herself unwell, and under the doctor’s treatment. Defendant was the only man who had had connection with her. By Mr Wilson : She knew both Begg and Snnpson, who lived at the Taieri about four years ago, but neither had had any intimacy with her. Her bedroom was in the kitchen, and Simpson was once there after the rest of the household had retired. One day on coming from church defendant upbraided her with hayiqg bad connection with Sitnpsou; but she denied it. Re'-examined ; It was in the night-time and in her bedroom when defendant took advantage of her,—George Ford said complainant was in his employ for about twelvemonths, andleft because she was in the-family way. Defendant and complainant were very intimate, and when not m his company she behaved excellently. Her general behaviour towards the other men was that of an honest girl. He knew a man named Begg, and another called Henry, but no undue intimacy existed between them and complainant. —Mr Wilson said that complainant had had connection with two men besides the defendant. -Their names were Begg and Simpson. He called Henry Simpm, who denied point-blank that complain-

ant and he on any occasion ever approached !, to what was imputed to him. The Bench Ordered that defendant pay 7s 6d a-week to support of the child.