RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3544, 2 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, July 2, (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

The Magistrate took his seat at three minutes past eleven o’cLek. Before commencing the business of the day, his Worship said : The case of Harry Pearson, in which the information was dismissed on the 29th June, having Lad the public attention drawn to it’ and there being an apparent misconception prevailing in regard to the state of the law concerning it, I consider it right to afford further explanation on the subject, in order to prevent any future misapprehension of the same kind. The accused was charged under section 4 of “The Vagrant Act, ISG6, Amendment Act. 1869,” with misbehaviour in the theatre. I was of opinion that the charge, even although proved, could not be sustained, it being bad in law, and the case was therefore dismissed." The use of “threatening, abusive, or insulting words, or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned,” is only punishable under that Act when it takes place “in any public street, thoroughfare, or place.” Each of these words is of the same class, and the word “ place ” must be interpreted as being a place in the open air to which the public have free access. The central space in the Octagon, the Town Belt, the railway platform, theaterrace in front of the Supreme Court buildings, any of the jetties, may be mentioned to show what is a “place” in the sen-e of the statute. By no straining can the word “place” in the Act be held to include the interior of a house or building occupied as a theatre. In the same section of the Act the same phrase, “ in any public street, thoroughfare, or < place,” is use l in reference to obscene language uttered “ within the view or hearing of any person passing therein.” The words “passing therein” are wholly inapplicable to an enclosed theatre, and clearly refer to a place where the public have a right to pass unrestrictedly to and fro. In no sense within the Act can a playhouse or theatre be accounted a pubLc place. Although the public gain admission on payment, those admitted have not the uncontrolled right to go to any part of it they choose. Their privilege is limited to the special part to which they are admitted. It often happens that part of a theatre is owned by other persons than the general proprietor. Private boxes are held to be strictly the private property of the persons to whom they belong, aud no other person has a right of access thereto, and such boxes have been assessed separately for local rates. I had therefore no alternative than to dismiss the charge, which I did, only alluding to one point, deeming it unnecessary in the public interest to say more, Seeing toe mLcouception which exists, and which I could not have anticipated. I have now gone more fully into the matter. I will also take the opportunity to add to my r rtl '-U'M 1-o.navUg fivi the guklivuec uf the lessees in future, that the duty of preserving order within the theatre rests, in the first instance, upon them, and that the assistance of the police should only be called for when they are unable by themselves and their servants to maintain order. Their first care should be to prevent the admission of any person of bad character. If they knowingly permit any disorderly conduct in any part of the theatre, or any common prostitutes or persons of notoriously bad character to assemble therein, they become liable to a fine of L2O under “ The Licensed Theatres Ordinance, 1862.” In the event of any icerson making an improper noise or disturbance within the theatre or lobbies, he should be requested by the lessees or their servants to leave ; and if the request be not complied with they pay then proceed to remove the offender, using no more force than is necessary to do so. If The offender should strike any person while being so removed, ho should at onoe be taken into custody ’ for assault by any constable present. The law on this point is established by the case Lewis v. Arnold, 4C. and P., 354. It may be added that a penal enactment must be strictly interpi eted. A magistrate ought in no case to strain the law. If circumstances occur to show that the law is imperfect, it should be amended in the ordinary constitutional manner.

I have also to state that I have thought over ihe point raised in Mrs diamond’s case, and am of opinion that the supplying of liquor on a Sunday to a lodger in a private room in an hotel, when it is paid for by him and partly consumed by a friend who is his guest for the tiipe, )s not in contravention of the 33rd section of the Ordinance. Licensees should at the same time talcs care that no abqse occurs und6r the provis® of that section, as this may militate against them if reported to the ■ Licensing Court.

Drunkenness. —John Meggatfc was dismissed wi'.h a caution.

Breach of the Gaols and Prisons Cruxnance. - Waiter Bridges was charged by John Uutra ii with lo.tering about the place where a gang of prisoners were at w->rk ; and al>Q with resisting the police when arrested, and using profane and obscene language! Mr Joyce appeared for accused, and said the latter was in an unfortunate position, haying got into this trouble through getting druiik at a wedding party. He was engineer of the steamer Jane, and had always borne a good character.—John Outram, overseer of prison labor, said that accused was, on July 1, hanging about the prisoners working under witness’s superintendence, and when'ordered to go away he refused, resisting the police and using very bad language.— Andrew Thomson, merchant, of Port Chalmers, and owner of the Jane, said accused came from Home in the Surat, and had been in his employ for about three mouths, during which time he had always behaved well.—Const. Conn said that When fi a was sent for by Mr Outram to remove prisoner the latter refused and struck witness several times tearing handfuls of hair out of his whisker?! —For loitering round the prjsouers ac used was fined 40s, or thirty days ; and for re.sisting the police 10s, or six days. Illegally on Premises. —Ellis Burrows was charged, on remand, wiih being illegally on the premises of a Mr Bat-on Mr M'Kea’y appeared for accused. -James Gall, butcher, said on Monday last he saw someone getting over Mr Batson’s fence in Albany street, and gave the alarm. Witness could not say who the man was.—Constables Doran and Gilbert gave evidence, from which it appeared that accused was under the influence of drink when amsted. —Mr M’Keay said accused was not on tho premises for a* felonious purpose ; the facts were simply these ; anoiisecl was a member of tho Provincial Brass Baud, and on the occasion of that body going to Port Chalmers he had drunk a glass or fcw .° ikem'- Being of very sober habits, this had the effect of rendering him almost insane, and on going homo ho had got into the wrong premises. This was shown by his knocking at Mr Batson’s door and askin"

for admittance—sfirely not the act of one with a felonious purpose,—Accused’s father, aud his employer, and a number of other witnesses were called as to character, all speaking very highly of him. - His Worship said that while accused was in a sense within the power of the Vagrant Act, still there was a difference between him and men who were given to loafing and prowling about meat safes and back doors of a night. His good character, too, was of great influence, and as he (his Worship) would be compelled to send accused to prison if he inflicted any punishment, ha preferred to look upon the case in the light of a mistake —accused was evidently too drunk to know bis own door. Accused was dismissed with an admonition to retrieve his now somewhat damaged character. Assault.— George Moore aud Frederic Hopcraft were charged with unlawfully assaulting aud boating Elizabeth Haig. Mr A. Bathgate appeared for complainant, Mr Barton for defendants.—Complainant stated that she was housekeeper for Mr M‘Leod, of Forth street, and had two houses in Albany street. Her daughter, Sarah Booth, lived in one of these. On Tuesday, June 23, between two and three o'clock, witnesa's grandson came to witness and said two men were kicking Aunt Sarah’s door in. She went over to the house and found defendants, and asked them why they were taking such a liberty. They replied that her daughter was a thief and a whore ; Hopcraft adding that the daughter had stolen his watch and chain. Witness said they knew where to obtain redress, Moore replying that they were not such fools, Witness went into the house, when defendants forced their way in, tnrowiag her back on a table Moore sat on a machine, and Hopc aft in an arm chair, and said they would stop as long as they liked. Moore then said to her daughter, “ Sarah, shake hands and make it up ;” she replying that sue would not. Witness then said—‘‘Gentlemen, I suppose you are going to reside here, so I’ll lock yon in ” When they found this they both rushed out. Cross-examined : L am not separated from ray husband, but he is a farmer at Waihola My not living with my tiuebaud has nothing to do with tins case. My daughter Surah Booth is married, tier husband has gone up to Blacks, but has promised to come back to her. Me has been away three years. I believe Moore used to visit Mrs Booth, but had never seen hj m before. 1 did not ask them in to discuss the matter: they forced themselves in Mrs Booth did not ask Moore to sit down, but called him “George.” iShe also asked him to send Hopcraft away; but Mov>re did not say ho should require him as a witness, i said they should “ pay dear for this,” but Tid not commence with Mrs Booth to use very choice language as loud as we could. Another daughter of mine, Mrs Lamb, was. .here, but she did not say to Mrs Booth “Take and chop up the d d match aud sive it him. Mrs Lamb don’t s*ear, nor does Mrs Booth, nor do I. Moore said if me gave up the chain in pieces he did not ■-are he would give her L2O for it. Mrs Booth did not say “ oend for ihe police; jciey won’t be abie to Mud it ” ; nor did she mreateu to spit in Moore’s eye.—Sarah Booth said defendants were in liquor when diey came to her home, especially Hopcraft, and she would not admit them. Hop craft kicked at the dour, but Moore said, >o d— d fear.” They then said they 'oud “show her up,” and went to the ■itar aud Garter Hotel. They then came lack to t«e house, and sa;d witness had ■itoleu Moore’s watch and chain, I hey said it would be better to “ cry her in the street lun obtain redress bylaw.” After forcing heir way in, Moore placed himself on her mowing-machine, and Hopcraft near the clock. the latter used filthy and disgusting language, which -witness cmld not repeat. Moore asked her to give him oack Urn watch be gave hor, which abc ■'ei used to do. Moore then said he would give her L.20 for it, and she replied that sue oad not been in the habit of accepting money ii'Oin men. Moore then asked her to shake uanda with him, but she declined, saying she could not do so in friendship. Moore ■’said then “ do so in adveisity,” witness relying. “.No, George, I would rather be miles off than that anything of that sort should happen.” Her mother afterward# sent her to her sister’s house. While going Hopcraft sang out, “There goes the thiei that stole ray watch aud chain.”—Crossexamined by Mr Barton : She refused to let defendants in when they went to her house, because she was not in the habit of having men like Mr Hopcraft there.—Yon seem to be very bitter with Hopcraft? Because 1 don’t know him. V mi seem to be very intimate with Moore? For nine mouths. —-still yon are marri d ? Wht n I was first introduced to Moore I told him that I was a married woman, and he said that he would wain till my time was op till I was a free woman—to get married to him.—(Loud laughter.)—-then you were keeping company with hmi for nine months? I have proof in my pocket that I was.— What proof do you mean? Letters. One letter and a portrait. —Being a marrisd woman, it was an odd courtship ? That I cannot say.—You were on very intimate terms with him? No more than walking out with him, and going to places of amusement. Can you swear he was never in your house “ after dark ” ? Nob all night. He tpay havp been there up to a quarter to eleven at night,-All atone? Yes. I can trust myself with half-a-dojpn at night.— (Renewed laughter.)— Can you trust yourself with one alone. L can protect myself. Do you mean to say there was no impropriety between you ? I c*n swear there was none.—Did you ever write to him asking him to come and see you occasionally ? vV ituess (to the Bench) : ;Need I answer that ? His Worship said the reply could not bear on the a sault,—Mr Barton had asked it simply toshow what the character of this “ no 1$ ” family was ?—Mr A. Bathgate admitted that witness’s character was, unlike that of Cjsaar’s wife, “very suspicious.” —(Laughter.) No good could be gained by the question. He could bring ample evidence to show that they were very respectable parties.—The question was not pressed. —Mr Barton : Has that very person who is here (your husband’s brother’s wife) bean in the habit of going into your house, and seeing you playing the lover with Moore ? Witness refused to answer the question.—Mr Barton : Do you swear that you never wrote these letters (produced), nor dictated them, nor sent them to “George dear”? —The bailiff: They say “ George dear.”—Witness : I never saw them before. I cannot write.—Alice Hume gave corroborative evidence. She only saw part of the assault, as Mopre told her to pqt Jier head in a bag—(laughter)—which she interpreted as meaning that her presence was not required.— »usan Lamb, a married sister of Mrs - arah Booth, corroborated the latter’s testimony adding that Hopcraft had called her sister aud herself an opprobious name, and she the mother of five children.” On witness threatening to send for the police, Moore said it was “of no use, as he had plenty of money to back him.” Mr Baiton, in stating the facts of the case for the defence, expressed his intention of proving that the intimacy between Mrs Booth and Moore was not of the character she alleged it to have been. She had obtained a watch from Moore in such a manner as he could not lay any charge against her, and he having determined to get it back, took Hopcraft, - a friend who had never seen any cf these women before, with him to witness a depiapd he (Moore) intended to

make for the watch. He characterised the whole proceeding as the outcome of malice, and the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses, “a whole, entire, and gioss fabrication. ”

[Left sitting.]