RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Evening Star, Issue 3545, 3 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

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

The case of Booth v. Mrore and Hopcraft was only partly heard when we Went to press yesterday. In support of the defence. Hopcraft was called and said s—l know Moore. He asked me to go with him to plaintiff’s house, to ask for the watch and chain. He said he wanted me as a witness. He was perfectly sober at the time. We went to the gate and saw the woman Booth looking out of the window. When she saw us she locked tho door. I called through the doar that we would n"t go until we bad seen her. I lie old lady (Hume) told us to clear out. We replied that there was a party inside who knew what we wanted, and we were bound to see her. Another woman came, with a child in her arms. Moore used no improper language at this time. The woman with the child said, “ '-'end for my mother ” I he prosecutrix then c»rae and got into an awful rage. He told her about the watch, and had a great “barney” with her out siue. The old lady then knocked at the door, and said, “Open and we will see all about it.” Prosecutrix asked, “Do you call my daughter a thief?” He replied. *‘Yes.” She said, “ You had better call her •” 1 Ba id yes, I had heard she was. The door was opened, and we were invited to go in and aeeaboutit. They wanted to shut the door after we got in. I said, “No; keep the door open.” There was nothing indecent in the way I stood. Booth said, “Take a seat, George, and send the low vagabond (meaning me) away.” .she (Booth) added, “Why don’t you come down in the evening by yourself ?”—Hairy Cross deposed that be saw the parties go into the house, and, from the position in which he stood, he could see what occurred Nothing in the shape of an assault, such as had been sworn to by the witnesses for th°- prosecution, took place. A question having been put to the witness as tw the character of Mrs Booth’s house, Mr Bathgate objected to the question, alleging that he could have produced the whole neighborhood to prove that it was a perfectly respectable house, had he known that its character would have been questioned. ( vfter discussion, the question was allowed.) —Witness : I have seen men go in and out of the establishment on various occasions. —Mr Barton : Can you tell us what the general repute of the house is ? Witness: Yes, lean.—What is its general repute? (The question was objected to, and, after argument, Mr Bathgate said he would withdraw his objection, as counsel for the defence declined to put it)—Hia Worship was convinced that Moore had used improper language, but looked upon the assault as very trivial. He dwelt in strong terms upon their whole conduct in the pre seuce of females, fined Moure 20s for using moulting words, and dismissed the other charges.

[there was a stupid error in our report yesterday, Mr A. Bathgate being made to say that his client s conduct was, unlike that of Cassar’s wife, “ very suspicious,” It hardly requires to be said that the words really used were: “Like Caesar’s wife—above suspicion,”]

Friday, July 3.

(Before J. Bathgate, fc'sq., R.M.)

Drunkenness.— Joseph Blake was dicharged with a caution ; Louisa Hurley', alias O’Brien, 40s or fourteen days’ imprisonment, this being her second conviction within a mouth. —.sub-inspector Mallard said chat pri-ouer, while in Hokitika, was one of the most abaml.Lud characters there. A Disorderly Wife. —Maria Webb was charged on the information of her husband with pursuing disorderly conduct towards him, aud preventing him from obtaining a livelihood.—Mr M Keay, who appeared for complainant, said that his client asked protection from his wife. The latter was willing to withdraw the information, and he (Mr M’Keay) trusted that the distressing position the wile was now in would have the desired effect. After a few remarks from the Bench, defendant was discharged. CIVIL OASES, Y. Pyke v. AiWab.— ulaira L 23 2s, for moneys received by defendant on behalf of plaintiff. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs. Herbert, Haynes aud (Jo. v. Hutchison. Claim L 26 12s 4d for goods sold. Judgment was given by default for the amount, with costs.

Keenan v. Duff. —Claim L3O 19s 6d, fer board and lodging and money lent. Mr ■Zanders for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given for the amount claimed, less LlO paid into Court.

Weir v. Weill and Boyd.—Claim L 22 10s, as commission on the sale of certain plant, the property of defendants, to one Goodyer Mr Stewart for plaintiff, Mr Haggitt for deiendants The sum of u4 T's was paid into Court. Plaintiff’s case was that he had sold the plant-—a soda-water machine—for L 450, and that live per cent was agreed to as his oommi sion. He alterwards consented to take two aud-a-half per cent —Defendantpaid into Court one per cent, which he considered a just commission. Judgment was given for HI ss, with costs.