RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3536, 23 June 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, June 23. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness. —James Leckie was fined 6s, or forty-eight hours ; and John Hodee os. or twenty-four hours. 6 pW PR^ GP ®*.? IDIN0 ‘~Alexander Murray was charged with committing this offence on the 12th instant.—Constable Mee said he saw accused galloping his horse through Princes ° n h u- pullin ® U P» witness said he would summon him,-Accused pleaded that . it was an accident, as he had no bit in the home s mouth, and it bolted.—His Worshio S!?off° USe( ? h ? d a fl ed ver y foolishly, but aJ the offence had not been committed wilfully he ,\ ould re ? ei ™ the benefit of the doubt. sJueSk ?, lßmißSed ~ thou fi h was “a narrow Breach of the Town and Country Police Ordinance.— Benjamin Perry was charged with permitting prostitutes to assemble in his licensed house—the Alhambra Hotel.—Sergeant Anderson said that at about 1.15 on the morning of the 13th inst. he heard people using loud and obscene language m the bar of the hotel, in which there was a light. He knocked at the door and called out to accused to open it, but the latter would not do so. On knocking again accused opened the door, and witness went in and saw three prostitutes (who live in the adjacent houses) in the bar, with glasses in front of them. Witness told accused he was not allowed to harbor such women, upon which the latter said-“ What harm can I do? Ive lost my license at any rate ” The women were sent away, witness seeing them go in the direction of their houses.-Co “ stable Devine, who was with last witness on the night in question, gave similar evTdence —ln examination by Mr M'Keay, who anwnmpn both witnesses said the women could be known as prostitutes by Sch fe Hage ' Mr M ‘K<*y objecting Z Womhfn g “eeessary consequence.—His orship said any one would infer that women who make use of obscene language necessarily are prostitutes.-f’or the defend

Mr M‘Keay said that it had not been proved that accused was a holder of a license ; and also it was not shown that accused knew the women were prostitutes. These were necessary to be proved, and the failure to do so would be fatal to the prosecution. - His Worship said there was not a shadow of doubt in his mind. He would never punish a man while there waa any question about his having committed an offence; but in ihi < case it would be going against common sense to believe that accused was umwareth it th° women were proslitu'ea. Respectable women would not Le found at that time in the morning drinking and using obscene language in a second-rate hotel. A jury, and he (his Worship) sat in the place of a jury, had only facts given in evidence whereon to form an opinion.—-Mr M ‘Keay strenuously objected to women being classified among prostitutes, simply because they used obscene language— many women were given to drink and bad language, who still were not prostitutes.—BLis Worship was certain a breach of the 19th section of the Ordinance had been committed, but, as it was a first offence, prisoner would be fined 40s only. Breach of the Bye-Laws.—Fornotkeep-wg a light burning mi building materials, Henry Spiers and A. T. Anderson were each fined 5s and costs. Assault.— William Collins Hill charged Thomas Logan, quartz reefer, with assaulting him. Mr Johnston appeared for complainant and Mr Stout for defendant.—A discussion ensued as to a postponement of-the case, as a witness for the defence wrote to the effect that he could not attend to-day, but it was eventually decided to hear complainant’s evidence. —Complainant stated that on the 12th instant he had a glass of wine at the Empire Hotel, and on going away heard some one call out to him. He turned round and saw defendant, who said to him, “You can inform your friend that the next time he mentions my name I shall hit him.” Witness said, “Who may my friend be?” to which defendant replied, “Oh, you know • and a thing like you cango,” at the same time raising his foot and kicking witness behind Witness said, “You will hear of this again,” and went away. The kick did not hurt hm, but he suffered from the indignity inflicted on him in so public a place as the bar of the Empire Hotel. - There were only Henry Logan, Miss Montague (the barmaid), and defendant present at the time. Witness saw the first two persons the next day, and they asked him what steps he intended to take. He said he intended to call them both as witnesses, on which Henry Logan ■aid, “If you subpoena me, I’ll bet you half-a-crown that you lose the case, for 1 shall say I saw nothing;” and Miss Montague said she hoped he would not call her, as she did not know what she would do. Witness did not subpoena Miss Montague, as he had too much respect for her. Cross-ex-amined : Witness spoke to defendant in his usual manner when addressing him. Had been in Dunedin about twelve months, but had never spoken to defendant before.—Mr Stout said his Worship would doubtless see that the statement of the assault having been committed in a very public place was ha dly borne out, as there was only one person present besides the barmaid and the parties to the action. Complainant was evidently offended at suffering an indignity in the presence of Miss Montague, for whom he stated he had so much respect; and to raise himself from the humility he bad been reduced to in the eyes of the barmaid, he had brought this action. He (Mr Stout) felt sure if his Worship were to inflict "the nominal penalty of Is, that sum would be quite sufficient to clear his character in the eyes of the barmaid.—His Worship thought there was a clear assault in law and in fact —an assault upon complainant’s person, and one for which there waa no justification. It was a gross indignity, and such as the law could not sanction ; but, seeing no injury had resulted, and the action had been brought in a criminal way, a fine of 40s and costs would be inflicted. Obscene Language, —William Blackford was charged with this offence, and emphatically pleaded not guilty, immediately commencing to abuse the policeman who brought the charge.—Constable Gilbert said defendant’s son, a boy about twelve years old, came to him in the street and said defendant was ill-treating his wife. Witness went to the bouse and beard defendant use the language complained of and produced, which he wrote down at the time.—Defendant was fined 20s and costs, or seven days’ imprisonment.