RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3383, 23 December 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, December. 23. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —Charles Neillson. who had been before the Court on the previous day on a charge of drunkenness, was again brought up fra similar off not-. He pleaded that it was sickness, but the evidence of the arresting constable was that he was so incapable as to be unable t<> stand on his feet, Be was lined 2(la, in default four days’ imprisonment, —Charles Macaulay, charged with being damk and disorderly while in charge of a horse and cab on the 22nd inst., pleaded guilty. He had previously been lined for a similar offence. His Worship thought that it was high time that the license of a cabman who had frequently been convicted for drunkenness should be cancelled, as it was positively dangerous for a cab to be in his hands.—Defendant was fined 2()s ; in default four days’ imprisonment, with hard labor.

A '1 roublesomk Woman. —Lina O’Oallaghan, against whom there was “quite a page” of convictions, including drunkenness, using profane language, vagrancy, habitual drunkenness, and others, was charged with being drunk and misconducting herself early this morning. She was only released from gaol a couple of days ago, after undergoing a long sentence. She now said she wanted to have the place ; but his Worship thought if she did so she would go somewhere else, and be a bore there, and as she seemed determined to live in gaol she would be fined 20s, with the alternative of for days’ imprisonment. Larhikinism. John Harvey, a youth about 14 years old, was charged with throwing stones in Jetty street.—Const tide Conn saw' a number of boys in Jetty street on the 6th instant, amongst whom was the boy before the Court. He was throwing stones towards the direction of Secular’s bond. When they saw him they all ran awa y._Mr Stout, who appeared for defendant, called Henry Matthews, who slated 'hat they wore throwing atones at a cask in the bay. His Worship said that the boys about town were exceedingly troublesome, — Ihe Sub-Inspector said that a number of windows in that locality bad been broken.— His Worship thought it certainly high time that this practice were put a atop to, as it was getting quite rife aud the boys were becoming quite a nuisance. The boy would be fined 5s and costs.—William Williams, charged with letting off fireworks in Stafford atieet, pleaded guilty. His Worship advised the father of the lad to give him a slight thrashing ; but as it had been done, the boy was discharged with a caution. Assault. —Hydes v. Glover was a charge of a sault and battery alleged to have taken place at the Princess’s Theatre, on Monday last. — Joha Procter Hydes, comedian, said that on the evening of the 16th, defendant went into the office, and, after a short conversation about some money, struck him twice. The only provocation he gave was his saying that Mr Bunten would summons him.—His Worship requested witness to confine himself to the case, whereupon the latter replied that he was not fully instructed i in legal lore.— His Worship did not think witness would care about its being illegal Uw. — Witness said that his Worship mistook him ; he meant lore, not law.—(laughter.) When Glover struck him the second time . His Worship: Well then, what did you do? -Witness: He knocked me down, and of course I got up again?— His Worship : Then what did you do ? Did you strike him? -Witness: No.—His Worship; What, was he too much for you ? Witness : Rather ; I should say for two like me.— Defendant : V\ ere you sober on that night ? Witness: Well, yes, I was as sober as usual; as sober as lam now. Defendant: IHd I just touch you, or did I strike you? - Witness : You knocked me down —Chas. O’Brien said that, after talking about the ma ter, said to Hydes that he would like to hayp a “smack” at either O’Brien, Kemp, or himself. On going out, he said, “i’ll summon you to-morrow.” Hydes then replied “Or else Mr Bunten will summons you for giving him a black eye.” G lover then came and struck Hydes.—Plaintiff here said that he" would not trouole the Bench with further evidence,—Glover said that, after talking aboift money matters on the evening in question—Thorpe’s benefit-and as he was about to leave the place, Hydes talked about getting a smpmons from Bunten. He then went into the room and fell over the stops on the p’aintiff. His Worship : Then you had had a glass or two ? Defendant admitted that he was not sober, as it was customary for persons having a benefit to “stand” a glass of porter for those playing. His Worship considered there were two assaults, and to meet ihe matter lined defendant 30s and costs.—Plaintiff; Will your Worship allow me to look over it as far as I -am concerned His Worship : Why did you not say so before ? Would you like the matter to drop?— Plaintiff here swaye I Lis hands backwards and forwards, saying that was what he meant—his Worship interpreting it—that he wished to take a wet spong'and ydp e It out. As it was a private grievance they jbjftsjb sett'e it between themselves, iff which cfcsc tjm law would Be satisfied. His Worship then plaintiff if he would be amply satisfied were tRe case to be dismissed. Hydes' replying that defendant belonged to their profession, having been born in it; and he (plaintiff) had known both his father and mother. (Laughter),—The parties then shook hands, and retired from the ’Court sc'in in arm. C. O’Brien y. Drury was a charge of assault alleged .to have b ap. cpftunittcd in the Princess Theatre on the evening of the IQtb i ns t. Defendant admitted the offence, but pleaded provocation. His Worship considered that there was an immense amount of' bad pugnacity apiongst the “ profession,” that all yvere quarrelling amongst themselves, and fined him 20s and cqsts. PkopkrCab Hire. - J ndrew Leckie was charged by Captain Andrews with demanding ipofc tfiap tjhp authorised cab-hire from him on the 21st October.—Plaintiff had engaged defendant to drive hiqa from the Edinburgh OaaLlo Hotel, Cavefahajp, t.Q jforbury Park, and had charged him ss, which he believes was too much. The balance of

evidence showed the distance to bo a little over taao miles, that the bye-1 iwallowed 2s ;>n hour, and that therefore proper amount j vv«s charged. The case was dismissed, hia ‘ Worship v'hHng that if any member of the | frateiiiity’wuo was proved 'that ha had hhapged too much, he veil'd inflict a heavy Mai ntk.hAheg. --Patrick Welsh w<y called upon by the master of the Industrial .School 1 to show cause why ho should not contribute towards the support of his son an inmate of that institution. -Mr A. Bathgate. who appeared for defendant, said that bejorj going >nto the case he woud make an application under the 2'2nd section of tae act, tha jt.iebOy.be aj.ee! from the Industrial >ci\ooh ’He"hUd written to the Superintendent with regard tp the* indtter, i hut had not received a reply, —His Worship: How log has he been in the school ?—Air Bathgate : .Since the loth inst., when the , 1 case was before the Court, I believe the I

lad was wrongly committed, as he was not a neglected child, within the meaning of tlio Act. At the hearing there was no evidence beyond that of the constable, that ho was begging. Now, he (the learned counsel) presumed that, the charge was founded on his having been begging or receiving aims, but the master of the school (Mr Britton) had not given evidence to that effect. —His Worship: May I ask from whom you had that statement?—Mr Bathgate: From the father of the boy. His Worship : Precisely so ; it is only an ex parte statement.— Mr Bathgate was understood to say that he had also gathered biS information from the report in the papers, and from inquiries he had instituted.— ciis thought such rein nks were perfectly unwarrantable. —Mr Bathgate w s about to add, when interrupted by his Worship, that the constable was the only one sworn, and that Mr Britton was not put in the box. Were an adjournment allowed, the case would need to stand over till after the holidays, as the Superintendent would be busy on account of the Governor’s visit.—His Worship suggested the 6th January as the date for the case to come on, which was agreed to, it being explained that it was probable Mr Bathgate would receive a reply from Mr Macandrew in the meantime.