RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3562, 23 July 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, July 22, (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness.—Michael Fahey, charged with being drunk in George street and with assaulting Constable Doran while in the execution of his duty, was fined 20s, with the option of three days’ imprisonment. Obscene language—A charge of using obscene language, laid on the information of Constable Rooney, was adjourned till next day; prisoner to be remanued on his own recognizance.

'lhbft.— Jane Keiller, a young girl, was charged by Mark feayer with stealing one pair of elastic boots, of the value of 10s.Prisoner pleaded not guilty.■rr-Prosecutor said that prisoner was in his employ for ten weeks. He kept a boarding-house at Port Chalmers, and she left his service a couple of weeks ago. Shortly afterwards he missed a pair of his wife’s boots and some clothing. Prisoner, who was a passenger by the Asia, had been led astray by some of her shipmates. The boots she was now wearing were those in question.—Constable Rooney said that the report of the robbery having been made to him ha arrested prisoner in a bouse in Forth stieet, where she was at service. tfhe said that the boots and other things were lent to her by Mrs Sayer.—Prisoner, in answer to the Bench, said that she got the boots from Mrs Sayer, and left her clothes with her. She had intended te return the boots, but having worn them, thought it would be better to wait till she got into a place, and then pay for them.—His Worship said he could not convict on the evidence before him ; he could not send a young girl to gaol on mere suspicion. Had Mrs Sayer been able to appear, he would have adjourned the case till tomorrow to hear what she had got to say. Ho could not convict of larceny, as the prisoner had said that she had got the loan of the boots from Mrs Sayer (with whom she had left her own clothes), unless that statement was disproved. Unless Mrs Sayer could be here next day, he must dismiss the ease,<«n

Sub-Inspector Mallard said that it wss impossible for Mrs Sayer to appear; she was BL—His Worship in discharging prisoner remarked that he noticed that a slur had been thrown on her by Sayer, who said that she had been led away by her shipmates, while in fact she had been at service for a week. (An attempt to applaud made by several persons was immediately suppressed. ) Stealing a Watch.—William Williams was charged, on the information of Constable Henderson, with stealing, on the 20fch inst., a silver hunting watch, the property of Thomas George, of the value of LB.—Prosecutor said he was a laborer residing at Green Island. On Monday last he accompanied prisoner from Green Island to town. Prisoner took him to the Globe Hotel, and placed him on a bed there. Before lying down he had a silver watch in his breast” pocket, and some money in his purse. Prisoner went away and returned in about half-an-hour, When he came back witness felt him turn him over and take the guard from his waistcoat, but he was so insensible that ho was unable to stop him. He was as stupid from drink as though he were a child. Ihe watch was attached to the guard. He saw nothing more of the prisoner till he saw him in custody that morning. It was about eleven o’clock at night when he came to his senses. He then found his knife, guard, tobaeoo, watch, and money gone. The watch is of the value of LB. The watch and guard produced were his property, and those referred to in bis evidence. He reported the robbery to the police yesterday. Abraham Myers, licensed pawnbroker, deposed that prisoner called at his place of business about four © clock on Monday afternoon, and offered the watch now produced for pledge, he advancing him L2. Witness believed that he said he would not part with the watch for LSO, as it was a gift fr m his parents. Witness gave him the ticket produced for it.—Alex. Henderson, police constable, apprehended the prisoner last night, at about ten o’clock, on a charge of stealing a watch from the prosecutor. On searching him, he found the pawn-ticket produced on him amongst other

things. Prisoner said that he had taken the watch, but that prosecutor requested him to pawn it. In answer to the caution, prisoner said that he was innocent of the charge against him. Prosecutor had requested him to pawn the watch, and he had done so. He called Mrs Diamond, but her evidence was unimportant.—Prisoner was then cotnmitted for trial, and Kail was allowed himself m the sum of LSO, and two sureties ©f L 25 each. CIVIL CASES. Hoffman y. Hynes.—Claim L 4 9s lid for goods supplied,—-Judgment was given by default for the amount claimed, with costs. Jones v, Newman. Claim 15, for damages done to a house owned by plaintiff illegally occupied by defendant. Plaintiff also sued to recover possession of the premises.—Mr Bathgate for plaintiff, Mr 'tout for defendant.—There was a cross-

action, in which defendant claimed L 7 I s ■or being wrongfully dismissed from Mrs Jones s service, with whom she was working as laundress; and L2 10s for wood and coal bought on her behalf.—lt appeared from the evidence that defendant was, if she suited, io get LSO per year. She was taken on trial, but as she did not answer was dismissed had taken possession of the cottage referred to, which was situated on plaintiff’s land, and had refused to quit when requested to do so. She had been served with a notice that unless she immediately left, she would be charged at the rate of 80s a week. Mrs (ones deposed that defendant was not a laundress at all, and that she had admitted that she washed in a kerosene tin, and ironed on a board.—Mr Stout submitted

that plaintiff must be nonsuited. His client had been served with a notice that, if she remained, she would be charged 30s per week, and therefore, as the house must have been worth more than L2O, the case could not be brought under the Sflth section of the Resident Magistrate’s Court. His client had not been paid for the first week’s washing, and nad paid L2 10s for coal and wood which was now on plaintiff s land.—Defendant deposed that there were no complaints made with the washing, and denied plaintiff’s evidence in toto, adding that the latter admitted that her previous laundress had spoiled all her things. —Mrs exclaimed, “Oh! dear,” and uplifted hi?r hands atgyery remark made by this witpess, to the intense amusement of all ia Court,—His Worship said that plaintiff in the first case must be nonsuited ' The note fixed the rent at LI IDs per week, and this raised the presumption that the value »f the house was far beyond L2O. In the cross-action there was a conflict of evidence, Mrs Jones saying that she simply took defendant on trial, and that she made comidaints that thp clothes were improperly washed at the end of the fint week; while on the other hand defendant said that the only complaint was that half-a : do*ea handkerchiefs were missing and that others were substituted. The claim for wood and coal was dismissed. Both as to defendant being on trial and as to her incompeteacy, the presumption was against Mrs Newman. Judgment was given for L 3 and costs, the amount due fur three weeks’ washing. Cooper v. Diggs.—This was an action to recover possession of a tenement in Stuart street.—Defendant was ordered to give up possession in a week.

Thursday, July 23. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., E.M.) The Magistrate took his seat on the Bench at ten minutes to eleven.

Drunkenness.—John Liston and John Callaghan were discharged with a caution as it was their first offence. ’

Obscene Language. ——Jas, Gore, charged ©n remand with using obscene language, was fined ss, or, in default, forty-eight hours’ imprisonment.—His Worship considered the offence proved, but as the language complained of was not very bad, he inflicted the smallest penalty he could.