RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3253, 24 July 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, July 24 (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) Jones v. Jones, —This was an information laid by Mr Hocken. as trustee for plaintiff (who is the wife of defendant) under a deed of separation, charging defendant with breaking two panes of glass in the house in George street in which plaintiff resides. Mr Haggitt appeared for plaintiff, and said that the parlies in this case were man and wife, but that in consequence of constant ill-usage and acts of cruelty on the part of defendant, plaintiff had been compelled to institute proceedings to obtain a divorce. Eventually, a deed of separation had been entered into on September 23. 1872, plaintiff leaving defendant and residing in the house in which the offence complained of was committed. Counsel also said that there was an application on the part of plaintiff to have defendant bound over to keep the peace, which would be heard after this case, but the circumstances being of the same nature in both, his opening remarks would apply to the latter as well as the former. Since the deed of separation bad been entered into, tbe plaintiff had been subjected to shameful treatment on the part of defendant, as would be proved. Sue could not stir out of the house without having her footsteps dogged by defendant, who would tread on her heels in the street, use abusive language, and give her every kind of annoyance. As if this were not sufficient, the house itself was not safe from defendant’s violence. On several occasions he had forced his way in—once breaking a window valued at 30s, in reference to which no steps were taken ; but on this recurrence of the annoyance plaintiff determined to put a stop to it. Sarah Murphy, servant to plaintiff, gave evidence to the effect that, on July 21, defendant came to plaintiff’s house, and wanted to force his way in ; failing in which, he broke two windows of the dining-room. He was continually coming about the house, and had sometimes forced his way in and insulted and ill-used Mrs Jones, so they had to keep the doors always locked.—Mary Sarah Robinson Jones, plaintiff, gave similar evidence, stating that she was in the dining room when defendant broke the windows, and let the blind down to prevent the glass going about the mom. — Defendant applied for an adjournment till Monday next, in order to bring a witness to prove that he was not in George street on the night in question, which was granted. Jones v. Jones.—This, a case between the same parties, was an application by plaintiff to have defendant, her husband, bound over to keep tbo peace. Mr Haggitt, for plaintiff, made a similar statement to that in the other case, adding that there was a special instance of cruelty and ill-usage which would be proved. He would also state that defendant had once before, namely, on February 27 in the present year, been bound over, and that that on the very day of the expiration of the term, three months, defendant had recommenced hi,s‘ series of annoyances. He (Mr Haggitt) would not trust himself to speak of the conduct of defendant as it deserved, but would content himself with saying that no man would behave towards a woman as this “ quasi-specimen of humanity ” had done.—Plaintiff stated that on July 4 she went out and found defendant waiting for her. He laid hold of her, used abusive and threatening language, and kicked her violently. He said he would “smash ” her fane and “ do for” her. A woman who was near called out to him, diverting his attention, and she escaped. She -was severely bruised on her legs, where defendant kicked her. Sae was in constant bodily fear of his violence, — -Sarah Murphy, witness in the former case, said that witness was severely bruis d on the day in question.—Alice Margaret Robinson J ones, sister to pi aintiff', gave evidence as to the continual bad usage plaintiff'bad suffered from defendant for yeai's past, and that he had said “he would finish” her, and hive to be hanged for her.”—Sub-Inspector Mallard stated that the police had been instructed to watch defendant’s conduct in the streets with regard to plaintiff.—The only statement defendant could make was that he never touched plaintiff, and that ehe

and the witnesses had sworn a parcel of lies. It was all wrong, and very * ‘ hard lines ” for him. His Worship could not see where the “hard lines” came in, and defendant was bound over to keep the peace for twelve months, himself in L3OO, and two sureties of LIOO each.