RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3480, 18 April 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Saturday, April 18.

(Before.J. Bathgate, Esq., 8.M.)

Drunkenness.— Thomas Watson, for this offence, wat fined ss, with the option of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment,—Thomas Walters, charged with being drank and disorderly yesterday afternoon, pleaded guilty.— His Worship : Where did you come from ? Prisoner : ( only arrived in the Himalaya. His Worship: How did you oome out? Were you an immigrant?— Prisoner (evidently surprised): No; I paid my passage. His Worship : I see you only have got 4s. Where did you get the money to pay your passage ?—Prisoner : If you want to know I will tell you : I got it in .the American army. —(Laughter ) —Prisoner was fined 6s, or forty-eight hours Theft. —Thomas Watson was charged with having on the 17th April stolen from the Union Hotel a prayer-book, valued at 2s fid, the property of Walter Gordon Hydes.— Prisoner said he must have been drunk at the time, and that ho had never stolen anything before.—Sergeant Nimon said he apprehended prisoner last night, on a charge of drunkenness. Found the book produced in his possession.—W. G. Hydes said the prayer-book produced was his property. It was in the Union Hotel, where he resides. Not having been at church for the last couple of weeks, he had not used it lately. - John Proctor Hydes said he resided at the

Union Hotel.—Hia Worship : Did you say you were the proprietor? -Sub-Inspector Mallard ; No, sir, he simply lodges there. This is Mr Hydes, the comedian.—(Laughter ) —Witness then said that he saw prisoner in the hotel yesterday afternoon. .He was in the bedroom always occupied by witness’s son. Witness saw the book in that room on the previous day. —Evidence as to witness’s character was given by William Harper, John Elder, and Louis J. Weidner. The latter said that prisoner’s name was Jewitt. He was well connected, but occasional y got on the “spree.” When witness was clerk to the Mayor’s Court, prisoner was charged with lunacy and discharged, as Mr Harper promised to take care of him,—Prisoner was discharged with a caution.

Vagrancy, —Jane Kirby, better known as Jessie Holt, Ellen Carbery, and Margaret Bradshaw, were severally charged with having no visible means of support.—The prisoners all pleaded guilty, and his Worship determined to know all about them.—Evideuce was then given by Detective Shury, who arrested Kirby and Bradshaw, and by Sergeant Anderson, who arrested .Carbery. Kirby had been convicted for vagrancy at Cromwell, and Bradshaw was a convicted thief. Carbery had only been in the Colony a couple of months, having come from Hobart Town. —Hia Worship sentenced each of the prisoners to three months’ imprisonment, with hard labor.

Breach of the Bye-laws.— George Clayton, contractor, was charged with neglecting to provide sufficient lights on certain building material. The case was before the Court on Thursday, when, as the defendant neglected to appear in answer to the summons, his Worship looked upon his absence as contempt of Court, and fined him L 5 and costs. Mr stout, who defended, now stated that Clayton s non-attendance on Thursday was due to his having been mistaken as to the day on which tno case would come on, George Hindle, glass and china ware storekeeper, said he supplied defendant with the

lamp produced.—Mr Stout then requested defendant to make a statement, hut SubInspector Mallard objected.—bis Worship said that after the case was concluded on Thursday, defendant went to him, and apologised for his absence, saying that he had mistaken the day of hearing, and that he had a defence to offer. Having made that apology ittookthesting away, and as he (his Worship) had no desire to press for a full penalty, as ibhe non-appearance was not intentional, allowed the re hearing on condition that defendant entered into recognizances for his appearance, which was done. He held the evidence given for the police as repeated.—Mr Stout asked that defendant be allowed to make the statement.—His Worship said that if defendant made the statement, it must be taken as evidence against himself. Defendant then said that he lit the lamp on the nights in question himself. He could not deny that they were out as the constables had stated.—His Worship said he would treat defendant as if he h«d appeared on the previous day, and fined him 10a and costs