RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3520, 4 June 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, June 4. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. Catherine Cahill was fined 20s, with the option of three days’ imprisonment; Frederick Patterson, ss, or forty-eight hours ; James Glancie, 40s, or fourteen days. Trespass. —John Brown, for being illegally on the premises of Bado isaae Boys. Albany street, on the night of the 3rd June, was sentenced to thirty days’ imprisonment. His Worship said that prisoner had rendered himself liable to a sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment. Several complaints had been made about people prowling about at night, and he took that opportunity of stating chat any person whatever being brought up under this clause of the Vagrancy Act, he would, without hesitation, inflict the full penalty. He made those remarks as a warning. Assault on a Police Constable.— Frederick Bullen, a strapping young fellow, was charged with having, at Caversham, on June 1, assaulted Constable Ilooney whilst in the execution of his duty.—Constable Koeney said that on the Ist instant he was un g a S§d in apprehending a woman named Charley, and apofcljev woman—both “Asiatics.” While doing so, some resistance was offered to him by a number of men, of whom he recognised prisoner as the ringleader Witness had to strike him on the breast to keep him off, as he was more determined than the other man who had assaulted him. Hr encouraged the mob to rush witness. He was a sailor by the Buckinghamshire and a shipmate of the man who had been committed for trial for assaulting witness. He had made inquiries and found that prisoner was a fighting man.—Sub-Inspector Mallard: 1 think the other case will prove that he is one of the .fancy.—(Laughter.)—Prisoner was then further charged with assaulting and beating Henry Boyes at Caversham on the 2nd June.—Complainant said he was storeman to Oliver and T'lph. While going home on Tuesday, and near the railway bridge, hj saw a crowd of people, numbering about fif teen or sixteen, two of whom were fighting ; both had their coats off. Witness succeeded in stopping them. Prisoner then ran up the hill uttering spae bad expressions. He said “Is there anyone here vyho will fight me?’ Without the slightest provocation he then assaulted witness.—His Worship : 1 can only attribute such extraordinary conduct to the fact of prisoner being a comparative stranger here. People coming here must understand that this is a law-abiding commit nity, and that respect for the law is well maintained. Without provocation you as sauit a man going to his own home. This cannot be tolerated. Again, vou are guiltx of resisting an officer of the 'law while f nifilling his duty. Now, a police officer must be respected and assisted, and any good citizen will assist an officer of the law. For the first offence I fine you L 5, with the alternative of thirty days’ imprisonment. For the second I cannot accept a fine ; you will, therefore, be sentenced to an additional thirty days’ imprisonment, the sentences to be cumulative. Theft.— George Buchanan was charged, on warrant, with stealing, on the Ist Janu-1 ary, one silver wat. hj, one gold bunting chain, and one locket, of the value of L 5, the property of John Russell.—Prisoner most emphatically denied the charge. On 1 the application of the police he was remanded ‘ till to morrow, bail being allowed himself in 1 the sum of LlO and two sureties of L 5 each. An Unruly Son. —Thomas Quinn, aladten years old, was sent to the' Industrial School for five years, and ordered to be brought up in the Church of England form l of persuasion, on the application of his mother, who complained that her son was unmanageable. Breach of the Prison Regulation.— Frank Towers, comedian,* was charged ou ! the information of Samuel Strong, warder, with committing a breach of the above regulations on May 30.—Mr Stout appeared for the gaol authorities, and Mr M'Keay for the defendant, who did not appear persoually.— Mr Stout said he did not know whether the Bench could pass sentence of imprisonment in Tpwers’s absence.—Mr M'Keay contended that personal appearance was npt required.—Mr Stqut remarked’ that the Government did not wish to press tfje charge very strongly, but they could not allow a breach of the Gaol Aet to pas unnoticed. If the gaol authorities thought that defendant would leave the Colony, a warrant ha i better be issued for his apprehension.—Mr M‘lieay said he did not think there was any fear of that.—The case was adjourned for a fori night. Master and Servant.— ln Hallenstein v. Murphy, his Worship gave judgment as follows :

The information in this case against the defendants, accused of absenting herself from her seme o , is laid under the seventeenth section of The Master and Apprentice Act, 1865.” llus Act (section 3) defines the word “ master” as meaning any person to whom any child shall be bound apprentice by indenture, that is by deed duly signed, sealed, and delivered. Section 10 provides by whom the indenture is to be executed, and requires it to be executed “ by the parent op guardian of the apprentice.” The intention of tlie Legislature is clear, that as a delinquent apprentice may be involved in sum; mary prosecution and penalties under the Act it is provided that the apprentice should be fully made aware of the nature of the deed to which lie or she may be a party ; and hence the execution of the deed is surrounded with a certain degree of solemnity, and the parent or guardian must be a party. By the word “ parent,” I understand the father, if he be alive and within the Colony, The document founded upon is informal as a deed, not being sealed. The mother has signed the deed, along With the defendant (her daughter), but during the father's life the mother ag suoh is entitled to no power. The indenture, therefore i 6 informal, and the defendant 1 not being properly bound, the pGnul cluuscs of tho Act do not upply to her case. The information will be dismissed without costs. An Unlicensed Entertainment. John Greg« was charged by Inspector Bain with not having, on'the'lst June, a license for an entertainment at the Princess Theatre, of which he was the lessee.—Defendant handed m to the Bench what appeared to be a license, and explained that he had gone to see about jt twp days before the day in question.—His Worship after looking at the paper, said defendant had pot applied fqr his license till the 2nd June, The conduct of

the collector for the Corpotatiori tfas extraordinary. On the Slud June he issried a I'Omse for the Ist and 2nd of the month. The case would be adjourned till Tries lay, as he must have the officer who issued the license and Mr Massey in attendance.