RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3604, 10 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, September 10. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness —David Pager, Sarah Spence, and Alfred Page Were discharged with a caution; Ann Hardy, an old offender, was fined 40s, with the option of fourteen days* imprisonment. A charge against <.llan M| Master was adjourned till next day, bail being allowed in the sum of L2. John Russell was called on to show cause why his bail should not be estreated, defendant not having appeared in answer to his bail when called upon last week. As bis friends had sent him to the Lunatic Asylum, his bail was returned. A Disorderly House.— lsabella Kidston, alias O’ Levin, was charged with being the occupier of a house frequented by reputed thieves. It was explained by the police that the persons of bad character bad left the neighborhood, and the house was broken up. The charge was withdrawn, defendant being still in the hospital, and the children removed to the Industrial School. Arrest on Suspicion. —Mary Thompson, a convicted prostitute, was charged on suspicion with having, on September 9, stolen one deposit receipt for the sum of L 337 10«, one cheque for L 36 KG fid, and another for L 6, the sum of LlB in notes, and sundry other papers, the property of Edward Puddy. —Sub-Inspector Mallard explained that prisoner was only apprehended on suspicion. He submitted that the police bad power to do so. Prosecutor, having become possessed of his property, refused to sign the information. Prosecutor was here, and the Sub-Inspector asked bis Worship to call him, and ask him definitely why he declined to sign the charge, —Edward Puddy said that he gave information to the police that he had missed some property. He afterwards recovered possession of it.—His Worship : Then having recovered your money, you do not wish to prosecute—that’s the English of it ? Witness replied in the affirmative. His Worship : Were you in the company of this woman ?—Witness : Yes ; but I was under the influence of liquor. —Sub-Insp Mallard showed what would be tho result of suoh a precedent as to allow the charge to be withdrawn. The moment nroseoutor recovered bis money, he thinks he can turn round without taking farther action.—His Worship said that seeing the property had been given up, be would have to dismiss the case.—-sub-inspector Mallard asked his Worship to express an opinion as to the eonduet of the police.—His Worship said they had acted rightly. Had they not sa acted they would not have done their duty. Sunday Labor. - Fred Hoperaft was charged on thg information of Constable Green with having, at Green Island, on Sunday, August 30, unlawfully exercised certain worldly business, contrary to the form of the statute, he being a carpenter above the age of fourteen ye irs.-r-Oa the charge being read over, Mr Barton, who defended, submitted that there was no such Act and no such crime, for there was no Colomal statute, and the t ngiish did not apply— His Worship: Thereisa Provincial Ordinance Mr Barton was aware of its existence, but it did not apply to this case. The English statute could n-t bo applicable, as m the Golomes they were going the very-’ opposite way, opening their athenaeums and other institut ous.—His Worship • That is against V rlnci^’eß > believe.—Mr Barton re. plied that he was thbre as an advocate, not - a politician. He addressed the Court on the law points at considerable length, and submitted that a man coaid do as no liked. —His Worahip i Do you advance ag an ar guxnent that any man can do as he likes on W# wWath f—Mr Batten (stophatibaiiy) i J i

do ’. ® )s * certainly. I am not going to j rOB1 L P ' o^ g Wh * t 1 8& y A man . i* aa . be w, *hed even though his acts to r hj °® snßlve » aQ d he could not be pushed ”" lM ? h j« to go thew. Sabblth oL n ° RXlßtin ß Uw b y rtihgi m for the voiLJf^ Va,ace ’ thoagh there might be hture ?t«nn h j/ P*° pI V and tiU the Legisbia Wo»ff d m and Neither toe The«S,X ° T ne elw ««» wTn no ?Tf u • Jewuh law « but there was not a hmtian one. An attemot was Sl* to provoo,l.«ye« vr-tUi!^™ foiled. It was w intod to bo hUd tfiU o oorpeeter could on the Sebbeth do. W. maker. l.«sle ;B ., a bootmaker a and so on, no long a-oack one did not carry ■“ h j? 7» r > dl ? tolling. Booido. this, the man had not been prosecuted, as required hia'wr A v ten days, and he assed his Worship to dismiss the case accordingly -His Worship thought the learned couusS had used as much argument in this case as it was possible to do. The Act said that no tradesman, artificer, laborer, workman, or any p rson whatever should do or exercise their worldly labor, business, work, or other ordinary labor—cases of necessity and chanty only excepted. To this exception a very wide latitude might be given, but this exception was not raised by the defence, but it appeared to he admitted that it was defendant’s ordinary calling that he was working at —Mr Barton said he had only raised a preliminary ob* jection for the purpose of ascertaining whetuer the law was applicable.—ln addressing himself to the applicability of the law his Worship said that the hours of labor had been reduced to eight per day, and during the last two sessions cf Parliament the hours of females had also been restricted just to prevent selfishness on the part of employers in uuikingthem work too long Keconsidered the law especially applicable since an Act had been passed lessening the hours of labor, tuus there was no necessity for working on a Sunday. This view was confirmed by Judge Johnston, who prescribed a form to be used in such cases. Seeing that a Judge of the Supreme «'ourt had given it as his opinion that it was a breach, and that anyur 6 7? r f ciu £ might be prosecuted, he (his orship) sitting there as a Justice would not be justified in setting that opinion > u j s Vibh res P ect to the ten days Ik i. k® en be *d that it was sufficient that the law should be set in operation within that period.—Mr Barton then explained that the work was of urgent necessity, some recent arrivals waiting to go into e place. The contract time had expired, and defendant haviug been threatened with a lawyer s ietter had to work on the Sunday. Ihe work was therefore one of necessity. - His Worship thought that the case would be mot by the law having been laid dovru. As It was the first case of the kind he would disimbs it. Still it was the duty of every citizen to conduct himself properly ou the Sabbath as it must be very offensive to any respectable person passing along a street to hear a carpenter hammering and sawing insi ie a house. ° 1 heft. —A Ifred Syndercombe was charged on remand with stealing a wooden ladder, the property of Messrs Hughes and Harvey, on or about August 21. '.Prisoner was sentenced to one montu’s imprisonment.— On a charge of stealing an iron grating of the value of 3s 6d from the Immigration Barracks he was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment; for stealing a quantity of drapery, the property of Mr A. K. Hay, to fourteen days’ imprisonment; and for stealing an American clock from the premises of Messrs Guthrie and Lirnach, to two months' imprisonment—the sentences to be cumulative. CIVIL CASE. F. J. Bunny v. T G. Alexander.—This was a claim for L 9 9s 7d, for cash advanced m sending a telegram.—His Worship : Why did you ask the clerk at the Telegraph Office to advance you L 9 9s 7d ?—Defendant ; To telegraph to London —ln answer to a further question, defendant said he was willing to consent to judgment.—His Worship, in giving judgment for plaintiff with costs; addressed defendant, saying; “i think you have given the telegraph clerks throughout the Colony a lesson.” [Left sitting.]