RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3638, 20 October 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, October 20. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) / Dkunkkwness. —Donald M ‘Sweeney was discharged with a caution ; John Black was fined2os, with the alteraative of six days’ imprisonment; and George Williams, 20s or three days’. , Shop-lifting* —Alexander Robertson, an arrival by the Parsee, from Glasgow, was charged with stealing from the shop-door of James Young, on October 19, seven shirts, of the value of 25s.—His Worship considered the evidence insufficient to support a conviction, though he had very strong suspicious of the guilt of prisoner. He was discharged with a caution. Be EACH OP THE TuENPIKE ORDINANCE.— David Peters admitted a charge of refusing to pay the sum of lls as legal toll due ou twenty-two horses which had passed through the .Water of Leith Toll Bar, [fo ollVrod no defence, aud his Worship gave judgment for complainant, with costs. Breaches of the Licensing Ordinance —Louis Court, John Siubald, Job Wain, Edward Lyons, aud George Uodsou were each charged with keeping iwo bars in their licensed houses, contrary to the Ordinance. It was mentioned that Mr stout, who appeared for Court and Sibbald, could not appear, 0.3 he was engaged in the Supreme Court. In order that the legal points might be fully argued, the whole of the cases were adjourned till Thursday week. Sub-In-spector Mallard complained that the police had not been consulted with regard to the adjournment, which he considered an un necessarily long one.—His Worship said the convenience of the lawyers must be considered.—After further argument, a second charge against Lyons of allowing music to take place in one of his rooms, known as the Olympic Music Hall, contrary to law, was also adjourned HU the same day.—His Worship ; Seeing tlrat the points involved should be fully argued, aud the terms of the Ordinance laid down, and seeing further the batch of lawyers on the other side, I would suggest that a legal gentlemen be employed for the police.—Mr Harris (who appears for Lyons): I think they will require it. ‘lf counsel be employed on the side of the police, and the case goes against them, I will ask for costs.—Sub-Inspector Mallard: Then your Worship wishes me to bring your suggestion under the notice of the Commissioner. —His Worship: Yes,—The matter then dropped.

Assault. Mary Callaghan was charged with assaulting James Gibb, bailiff of the Court, whilst in the execution of his duty as a constable.—Prosecutor said that he went to eject defendant from the house which she occupied on the previous day, whereupon she throw a piece of wood, and afterwards a broom, at his head. —Bailiff Barnes said he had called on defendant to serve her with a warrant in the earlier part of the day. She then threw a boiler at him. He thought a severe reprimand would have the desired effect.—-Defendant complained of receiving ill-treatment at the hands of the constable.—His Worship ; I don’t believe one word you say. You are a violent, excitable woman, as has been proved, and you don’t seem to be aware of your conduct. You have been guilty of most unbecoming con-

duct, aud yyou sifc there and try and make me believe *ydu are as innocent as a lamb.—(Laughter.) The bniljJi asked me to dismiss jou with a sever© reprimand, and L do so feeling that I am not doing! my duty. Instead of a reprimand you ought to be fined in a good round sum, aud in the event of not bring able to pay you should be sent to gaol. As you have a young child I will let you go with a very severe reprimand. If I had seen the slightest expression of regret 1 would not have said a word, but seeing you there brnziniug away in my fao i 1 cannot do so. 1 cannot speak too severe’y, for 1 see it cast -in your mind. that you won’t be.]eve you hove done wrong I —Prisoner! When L do wrong I always give in. I will never come here again.—His Worship : Not another word. You may go. Insulting Language, —Margaret Durie was charged with using insulting language to Jane Duncan.— Mr .Joyce appeared for complainant; and Mr M‘Keay for'defendant.—The charge was clearly proved, and defendant’ was fined 20s and costs, with the option of six days’ imprisonment.—Both Mr M'Keay and his Worship deprecated the unsatisfactory state of the law which prevented a defendant in a criminal action, even though of the most trivial nature, from giving evidence on oath; while in a civil action, where thousands of pounds were involved, his evidence was admissible.. Hia Worship remarked that he cou’d only say that the state of the law was ruch as certainly required amendment, and he -would never cea e referring to it, in the hope that some day such amendment would be made.