RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3417, 3 February 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, February 3. (Before J. Brown, Esq., J. Black, Esq., . Drunkenness.— Mary Jarvey, wko appeared in Court for the fortieth time, and put in the old plea of guilty, but asked to be discharged for the love of her family,” in which case she would not_ trouble the Bench any more, was fined 20s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment j John Manuel, ss, or twenty-four hours. Vagrancy.—Mary Jarvey was also charged with having no lawful means of support.—The bub-Inspector asked to withdraw the charge as the prisoner did not come under the Vagrancy Act, as a hard-working man kept her, which was done, the prisoner as she was removed from the dock saying, “ Thank you, Mr Mallard.” A Careless Waggoner. —John Mackay was charged with cruelty to a horse at Green Island on the 4th December.—This case was before the Court on the 6th January, when, as defendant did not appear, his counsel asked for an adjournment, which was strongly opposed by the police and not granted, as the case had been fixed for that particular date at the request of defendant himself, who afterwards, however, went up the country prior to the date of hearing. On that occasion the witness deposed that they saw a man, whom they could have recognized had he been present, but whom they did not know by name, at the cart beating the horse. It was then pointed out by Sub-luspec-tor Mallard that the police had been placed at a disadvantage by the non-appearance of the defendant, and were advised by Mr Strode to let the case fall through and to issue a new summons, and then if the defendant failed to appear it was promised that a warrant by which he would be brought before the Court should be issued, which course they decided to pursue.— Mr Stout defended.—William Stevenson saw defendant thrashing his horse on the night of the 4th December. The stick which he used was broken into a number of pieces by the way he lathered it; and witness’s wife gathered up the pieces shortly after defendant left. -George Logan saw a man beating a horse at Green Island on the night in question. He beat it so unmercifully that witness went up to Mm and told him that he should have got the beating, as he was more deserving of it than his horse. barah btevenson saw a man whom she could not recognize beating and kicking a horse on the Green Island road on the 4th December. (Witness here lifted her foot, suiting the action to the word, saying that he did “just so.”) He was beastly drunk, and his language was disgraceful. John Mackay was further charged mth ranoiis driving at Green Island on the same d ly, t ne . Burgess saw defendant driving eight horses down the hill at a furious rate. He i 0D ’ an< l s P ee( l was more than that the coaches drove at. He was drunk at the time. Joseph Burgess gave corroborative evidence, John Mackay was also charged with making use of obscene language at Green Island on the 4th December.—Wm. Stevenson, while sitting in his house at Green Island on the night in question, had his attention called to a noise outside. On going to see what it was he heard defendant making use of very bad language ; he was cursing and swearing, and it could be heard some distance.—George Logan heard defendant using very rough language to ms horses. It could be heard one hundred and xuty yards og.-— Jane .Burgess (gave corroborative evidence, t-M? Stout thought the charges

really amounted to one. Defendant had no break on the waggon, and the horses started and became unmanageable. The charge of furious driving must fall through, as he had no break on. The charge was not proved, as to do so it must be shown that the fault was the act of the defendant, but one of the witnesses negatived that by saying that he had no break. When he got to the foot of the hill, one mare which had been kicking at the wagon and had broken it, he hit with the whip; but the pieces of wood picked up by the woman Stevenson were firewood, he was instructed, which defendant had in his cart. As to the language, he admitted having used it, but it was only “waggoners’language.” Any person going along the road would admit that waggoners are not very choice in their language. —t he woman Burgess was then recalled, and in answer to the Bench, said that defendant was drunk, and could have used the break if he had wished to do so. —The Bench considered the charge of using obscene language clearly proved by the evidence of Stevenson, and fined de20s, or three days’ imprisonment.— Ihe charge of furious driving was also proved, and a similar penalty, with a similar alternative was inflicted.—ln the case of cruelty to animals, some of the evidence did not identify defendant, but still there were collateral circumstances, which caused the Bench to believe defendant was the man. A man like defendant, who was not aware of the laws of humanity, should be taught them. Defendant would bo sentenced to one month’s imprisonment without the option of a fine. Abduction.— Lizzie Powell, alias Mrs Patterson, was charged, on the information of John Williams, with having, on the 4th day of January, 1873, at Dunedin, unlawfully taken a young unmarried girl, under the age of sixteen years, viz., twelve years, named Maria Williams, out of the possession of Reginald r n -u* who then had lawful charge of her, and against the will of the said Mr Nuttall, the same being an indictable offence.— John Williams, clock-maker, said he resided at the corner of Manor place and Maitland street. He had a daughter named Maria Williams, She was born ou the 7th June, 1861, in Melbourne, On the sth January last she was, with his consent, in the service of Mr Reginald Nuttall, of Dunedin. From something he heard ou Tuesday, the 6th January, he was led to believe that she had left his service. He reported the matter to the police bn the same day. He had frequently called on the defendant subsequent to that date, and asked her where his daughter was. She positively denied that she had ever seen fhe girl, or that she had been at her place. He knew the defendant, who resided m Manor place, about 150 yards from his “•use. In answer to the Sub-Inspector as to the life she led, witness said he had frequently seen men go in and out of her house, and hail also seen her take men off the street. He saw her take a man who was the worse for liquor into her house on last Tuesday fortnight, and at this he became very indignant. On the Tuesday that he reported the matter to the police, he called at her house for the purpose of making inquiries aoout his daughter. She replied by lifting the blind, and speaking to him through the window, saying that you should call, as I have a chap in the house, 1 and denied knowing of his daughter, i mP , b,s daughter at Port Chalmers on last Thursday week.—Reginald W. Nuttall said that he had a girl named Maria Williams m his employ as domestic servant. She left ft oa l^B6 the 4th January, about 9.30 p.ra.—Maria Williams, daughter of John Williams : I was in the service of Mr Nuttall, and left his house on Sunday night. I went to the house of Lizzie Powell. (The Sub-Inspector asked witness why she went, and the child began crying.) I went because she asked me to leave my parents. I stopped there on that and the following night. Lizzie Powell had often asked me to leave my father. While I was there I saw two or three men going in and out. Lwo of the men were drunk. While I was staying at Powell’s a man took me to the back of the house ; he pulled me about and wanted me to go away with him. Powell was in the house at this time. I refused to go with the man. I did not know him. On the Tuesday Lizzie Powell took me to the Railway Station, and told me I was to go to Mrs Lloyd’s, at Port Chalmers, She gave me two shillings to pey my fare. On arriving at Poi t Chalmers, I to Mrs Lloyd s house, but, learning she was in gaol, I was taken by a Mrs Jenkins to a Mrs Campbell, where I stopped for a week, and was afterwards brought home by my father. I have frequently seen men going into Powell’s house, both during the night and the day.—By defendant: I swear that you gave me the two shillings, and told me to leave my father and mother, and also asked me to leave Mr NuttaU’s. - -Agnes M‘Donald, living in Manor place, within a few yards of defendant’s house, said she remembered Monday, the sth ult. Saw Maria Williams there that day. A man was at the back door along with her. Lizzie Powell was also present. Powell keeps a very bad house.—Catherine Jenkins stated that she resided at Port Chalmers, in a house formerly occupied by Mrs Lloyd, who is now in prison. Maria Williams went to her house on Tuesday, the 6th ult. She had never seen defendant. Constable Beasley called at Powell’s house on the first occasion, a day or two after the matter was reported by Williams, He called again on the 10th instant, and asked her if she knew where Maria Williams was. She denied all knowledge of the girl, and said she had not seen her.—Sergeant 0 Neill said he first knew the prisoner in 1865. She was then a prostitute, living in a common brothel in Walker street. He subsequently knew her as a prostitute, living at the back of the Bristol Hotel, in Cumberland street. In December, 1866, she was brought before the Bench at Oamaru, convicted of larceny, and sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment.— Constable Rooney had seen prisoner prowling the streets at night with most disreputable characters. He considered her one of the boldest prostitutes in Dunedin. Sergeant Neil said that the woman Lloyd, was now undergoingsentence in Duuedingaol. [Produced record of offences for which she had been con-victed.]—Sub-Inspector Mallard said that was the case for the police. Although all the facts elicited did not bear immediately on the case, he submitted that it showed the guilty mind of the accused.—Joseph Patterson was called by Powell. He had he said seen Maria Williams in the house of accused on the 3rd January.— Henry Williams, brother of the little girl, was called.—Accused, in answer to the usual question, merely said. “lam not guilty of what I am charged.”—The Bench said that a number of women like the accuied were in the habit of inveigling young girls to their destruction. 1 he case was not one with which they could deal summarily, for if they could they would have inflicted a sentence which, in their minds, would properly meet it. The accused was severely cautioned and discharged. - —The man Patterson here threw up his hat, and was arrested by Constable Rooney for charged ° £ Court ’ but was immediately dis-