RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3449, 12 March 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, March 12. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness.— Abraham Kelliston, for being drunk and disorderly in the passage leading into the Queen’s Theatre at 10.45 o’clock last night, was fined 5s with the option of 48 hours’ imprisonment. Charge of Vagrancy. Jane M‘Leod was charged, on the information of Detective Shury, with being the occupier, on the 6th March, of a house frequented by reputed thieves —His Worship (to prisoner) : Having heard the substance of

the information, have you any cause to show why you should not be convicted —Prisoner : Well, if thieves have been there it is not within my knowledge. His Worship : You were here the other morning, I think ?—Prisoner : Yes, for using indecent language — Wm. Brown, who described himself as being either a laborer or a cook, remembered the 6th instant. On that

night was in Machin’s right-of-way.—(His Worship : Why, that right-of-way comes up every now and then). — First was in the publichouse, where he had drinks. - (His Worship : Then having had the two drinks you were quite right for the right-of-way. Laughter. — What did you do then ?) — Witness continued : He met a young lady there and went into Jane Macleod’s house. He retired to rest, sleeping there all night, and when he woke up on the following morning he found Langham and Hill there.— His Worship : Before you go any further I have a question to ask you. Was prisoner in Malcolm’s hotel with you? — We went from there together. His Worship remarked

to the Sub-inspector that this hotel was becoming a bye-word in the Court proceedings — Witness further stated that when he went to bed he put his purse, containing one L5 note and five L1 notes, on the table, and when he woke up he found the purse empty. He immediately reported the matter to the police. Never authorized anyone to remove the money. — Prisoner: When you came to my house did I say I would not have drunken men there ? —I do not remember you saying so. —To his Worship: He knew Langham, who was tried at Queenstown for stealing a pound-note, witness’s property. The result of the trial was that witness got his money back and Langham got a month — Detective Shury knew the house occupied by the defendant. He knew both Langham and Hill, the men previously referred to. —The Sub-Inspector : Are they convicted thieves.— Witness replied in the affirmative. Hill was convicted of larceny in 1866. There were also convictions for vagrancy. His Worship: Does he get an honest living ?— Witness: Occasionally he hawks fish. I have frequently seen him in Macleod’s house. Langham got a month at Queenstown in May, 1871, for larceny. He was always kept under police surveillance in the Dunstan district. Jane Macleod was sentenced to six mouths’ imprisonment for stealing from the person in 1870. There were charges for drunkenness, obscene language, &c. — Sergt. Bevan gave similar evidence. Macleod, a native of Scotland, had been a prostitute ever since she came here. Had known Langham and Robinson for nine or ten years. They were reputed thieves and vagabonds, but Hill sometimes hawked fish. They lived with prostitutes, and shepherded drunken men. — Prisoner : You said just now that I had been a prostitute ever since I came here. Is that true? —Witness said that it was — Prisoner : You know it is false. Perhaps if you had had the chance you would have made me one.—(Laughter.) This was the case.— His Worship, addressing the prisoner, said : It is not too late now to cease the life you are living. There are some ladies in this town who would be only too glad to give you an opportunity of ceasing from following such a life. It is never too late to mend, and you are only following a course which must necessarily lead to your ultimate destruction ; you will die before your time and die full of misery. (Defendant here betrayed considerable emotion, bursting out crying and covering her face with her hands.) As the case against you is fully proved, I am bound to give you the full penalty, viz.,

three months imprisonment. While doing so, I beg to call the attention of the police that when a similar case comes before the Court the various convictions against the prisoner must be labelled on the information, in which case I will give the full term of twelve months allowed by the Act. Had this been done in this case, I should most decidedly have given Macleod twelve mouths; as it is, she will be sent to goal for three months, with hard labor.

Vagrancy.—John Langham, one of the parties referred to in the last case, was charged, with having no lawful means of support.—The evidence was something similar to that given in the last case. —Detective Shury had not known the prisoner well till the 26th of last month, though he had seen him before. His habits were drunkenness, aud he associated with prostitutes. Had seen him in a brothel kept by Ellen Grutt. He had not been in work since the 26th ult. Had seen him cardplaying in the Eagle Tavern on the 7th instant—ln answer to the Bench, Sub-inspector Mallard said that the license of the Tavern was taken away from Bolan, the then licensee, in 1872. Bolan still lived there.—His Worship: That man got a transfer the other day. If I had known such was the case I would not have granted it. If such characters as the two men before the Court, who drank and played cards all day, were in the place, the occupier was not a fit person to have a license. Witness also stated that Langham, Macleod, and Hill were in a room there together.—Mr E. Cook who defended, said that the case was only brought as the police suspected the men of stealing Brown’s purse, and thought that that was the only way to slate them. Laugham had been working at a Mr Massey's farm at Tapanui, for the past three years, and only came into town on the 26th of last month.— Thomas Hill, general hawker, had known Langham for about ten years. He was a mate of witness. They worked together. Langham was now working as a laborer at Kensington. Prisoner came from the country on the 26th last mouth. He had L8 when he came down. He had been away

from town for three or four years.—By SubInspector Mallard : He had not seen prisoner working at Kensington. He could not say from his own knowledge that prisoner had been working there — His Worship said there was very strong suspicion attached to the case. Early in the morning on which prisoner had been at Macleod’s house the money was missing. As his counsel had said, the charge was not one of theft, and he (His Worship) never intended convicting any person on mere suspicion. Ths police had done quite right in bringing the case before the Court, for if they had not done so they would have been neglecting their duty. He would give prisoner the benefit of the doubt, although he would recommend him to alter his mode of living, for having been once convicted he wouId be sentenced to twelve mouths imprisonment if he were again convicted. — Prisoner : Thanks, your Worship, I will take good care that you do not get me again.

Another Case.—Thomas Hill was charged with a similar offence.— The prisoner was discharged, Detective Shury saying that when prisoner worked he worked well, and when witness searched him he found a pound note and some loose silver on him.