RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3610, 17 September 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, September 17. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness —Robert Cheyne was fined 10a, with the option of three days’ imprisonment. A remanded charge of drunkenness against John Hotson was farther adjourned for a month, defendant being still in the Hospital. Ob cenk Language Jane M'Leod was charged on the information of Constable Gallagher, with using obscene language in Machm a right-of way, on September 17. ■The charge was clearly proved, and his Worship said it would be true charity to send prisoner to gaol, where she would be properly taken care of, for three months.—she was fined L 5, with the alternative of three days imprisonment. Wife Desertion. Louis Buisson was charged on the information of Kathleen Bouisson, his wife, withninlawfully deserting her, and leaving her without means of support. Mr F, R. Chap nan appeared for complainant, and Mr Johnston for defendant Mr Johnston asked that the information be amended, as defendant was described as a bottler, whereas he was only a bottle-washer —Mr Chapman stated the facts as follows : - ~he parties had been married a few yeira and up to the 26th May last Mrs Buisson was in a position to support herself, and had been doing so. On that day defendant assaulted her in a peculiar manner, as would be remembered by a case which had been before the Supreme Lourb, and which attracted considerable attention at the time. Defendant was tried tor attempting lo murder his wife, but the i jury acquitted him. Before this Buisson had treated his wife very badly, and after the assault she was unable to earn wages, and had been incapacitated ever since! ©ome short time back complainant went to see her husband, aud asked him if he were wibing to support her. He said he was not used some bad language to her, and threatened to give her in charge. Being his wife he was bound to support her; and his acquittal did not disentitle her from looking to her husband for support.—Complainant was cross-examined at considerable length, bhe said that she was married to one Thomas Thomson in 1853 ; that, after living with him for three months, he left her, aud that eight months later she gave birth to a child. When the child was four months old it died, and the father returned and saw the child laid out, but did not attend the funeral. He then left her, and, she believed^

went to Victoria; but she bad not since beard from him or about him When she married Buison he told her that the law allowed her to matry after a lapse of seven years —Elizabeth Hogg, registry office keeper, also gave evidence^ —Mr John; I>n submitted that there was no evidence of the death of complainaut’s first husband—Thom80n'—His 'worship said that by the law of New Zealand it was specially provided that no prosecution for bigamy after a man’s desertion for seven years, during which time he had not been heard, could- result in a connotion.—Mr Johnston then said that, after the jury bringing in a verdict acquitting defendant of the charge of attempting to murder his wife, his Worship was bound to come to the conclusion that the charge was a falsa and unfounded one, emanating either from malice or mental delusion, and defendant had therefore sufficient cause for deserting complainant.—Defendant said that he had been unable to obtain employment since the charge had been before the Su reme Court ; Messrs Isaacs and Marks aad Mr Strachau (his former employers) refusing to give him work. He had not earned more than 10 s iu any week since coming out of gael.—His Worship said he would only make a temporary order, as in the course of a few weeks mi.ht get employment which would place him in a position to be able to support his wifeor on the other hand, the wife might have so far recovered as ts be able to maintain herself. Defendant was fined Is and costs, and ordered to pay 7s per week.