RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3476, 14 April 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, April 14. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —Thomas Brown was fined ss, with the option of 48 hours’ imprisonment. Keeping a Disorderly House David Tuppin was charged with being the keeper of a bouse frequented by reputed thieves.— Jane Monson stated that Tuppin rented a house from her, and that it had been frequented by the “lowest of the low” for the last two or three weeks.—His Worship ; What do j'Ou mean by the “ lowest of the low?”—Witness; Very bad characters—women of ill fame, who do not work. They sit and drink ail night. On the 23rd March, a most disgraceful scene took place in this house, and witness reported the matter to the police.—Defendant stated that the case bad been brought on because he refused to work for a Mr luglis for Cs a day, when he could get 12s at his own trade.—SubInspector Mallard could not allow the statement made by Tuppin to go uncontradioted. The police had taken the action entirelv on their own responsibility, and were not induced to bring the charge by Mr luglis or anybody else.—Sergeant Golder stated that he visited defendant’s house on the 25th ult., and found a convicted thief and a prostitute there ; both were under the influence of liquor. Cautioned the defendant. Heard swearing and cursing going on in the house wh nhe passed on the 27th. Called the constable on duty and went into the house, where he found a prostitute and the woman Jans Glass, recently tried at the Supreme Court, both apparently under the influence of liquor.—-Defendant said he had been living here nine years, and had never bad a stain on his character. He could bring ‘‘memorials” from his masters to confirm this. Bis Worship said that persons found harboring bad characters must be severely punished,—Defendant: I plead hard for my wife’s sake. She is lying in a very serious condition.—His Worship sentenced him to fourteen days’ imprisonment to operate as a caution, and requested the Sub-Inspector to look after the condition of Mrs Tuppin, aud to see that she was sent to the hospital. Warrants to Apprehend.—Jane Glass and Mary Holmes not appearing in answer to charges of having no visible means of sup-

port, warrants were ordered to be issued for their apprehension. Keeping a House of 111 Fame.— Mary Anne Sutton was charged with being the occupier of a house frequented by persons having no visible means of support.' Mr Cook defended.—Abigail M‘Donald said she lived in Maclacgan street, and was living there on April 1. There were three houses adjoining the Alhambra Hotel in that street, and defendant lived in the lower house of the three. She had been there for five or six weeks. She did not visit the 'other two houses, only occasionally going in to see one lizzie Lowe. Witness never gave defendant any money, and did not know how she got her living. Witness had known her for eighteen months or two years. Access could be had readily from one house to the other two by the back yard.—Witness refusing to answer the questions, Sub-Inspector Mallard said the witness was evidently an unwilling one, and he was determined to have the truth. —Sergeant 0 ‘ i\ eill said that defendant, a prostitute, lived in Macla? gan street (Defendant: Oh, dear.) Visited her house on the morning of the 2nd inst. Saw

another prostitute, named Nelly Grut, in the house. Defendant had lived there for six or seven months. He believed by common repute that she occupied the three houses.—Mr Cook objected ; repute was not sufficient evidence.—Sub-Inspector Mallard : If your Worship thinks I have not sufficient evidence as to who is the rightful occupier I will bring the landlord to show that defendant occupies it.—His Worship; lam afraid you will have to withdraw the case if your witness is not here. Do you now ask to withdraw the case.—The Sub-Inspector ; No, not entirely. If I withdraw the case, I will lay proceedings immediately after.—Hia Worship; In every case of this kind it is always desirable to have the fullest evidence, therefore the landlord should have been here. —The Sub-Inspector : Very good; then I will withdraw this case.—Mr Cook applied that the case should be dismissed. There was no such thing as a non-suit in criminal cases. —His Worship said the Act enables the case to be withdrawn before it was adjudicated. No adjudication had been made in this case.' —Mr Cook held that adjudication used in the sense of the Act meant before the time of hearing.—Hia Worship explained that even if a dismissal were allowed, the justices have power under the 21st section of the Act to dismiss tlw complaint without its again being laid. He saw no harm that could accrue to the defendant by the charge being withdrawn. He would allow the charge to be withdrawn without prejudice to the information being again laid.—Mr Cook asked for costs, which hia Worship declined to entertain.