BESIDE NT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3686, 15 December 1874, Page 2

BESIDE NT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, December 15. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., E.M.) Drunkenness.— Frances Parkes and D. were dismissed with a caution; Mary Jarvey was fined 20s or fourteen days’. Charge against a Police Constable,— John Meikle was charged by the police with driving a horse and express in Great King street without a light after du<k on December I,—Constable Gilbert said that on the night in question he saw defendant driving his express without a. light. Witness followed him to his bouse, but he refused to give his name. Defendant was also very abusive. —Mr Adams, who appeared for the defence, said that the constable had behaved very rudely to defendant’s wife—fore ng a gate against her, and had further acted v ry improperly. He was drunk, and his conduct was very gross indeed -Sub-Inspector Mallard : Then all you have to do is to represent it to the Commissioner of Police, who will give you every satisfaction. I submit that it is very unfair that these inuendoes should go forth unless they are proved.—Mr Adams bad already stated that he intended calling three witnesses, who, he was instructed, would substautiate his remarks.—The fubInspector hoped the learned gentleman would not make any statement unless he could prove P. Mr \dams replied that if he thought the constable’s conduct would throw any light on h's case, he would state what had occurred. Of course he had no wish to say anything against the efficiency of the police, l>ub there were exceptions to every rule. The exception in this case was that there is one member in the force who did not know his duty, and he would comment on such conduct, if necessary, even though ho should hurt Mr Mallard’s feelings.—The Sub-In-spector : Ohj dear, no. I am proof against such accusations.—John Campbell said that he was at defendant’s house when the latter came home on the night in question. The constable came up to witness immediately afterwards and asked him if he had seen a light on defendant’s express. Witness replying in the affirmative, the constable said if he could not get him fortbathe would have him for furious driving.—The SubInspector ; According to the statement of the learned gentleman for the defence you are brought here to prove something else—to swear the constable was drunk ?—Witness : I cannot say he was.—The Sub-Inspec-tor : I should not think you could. Did you fcue the constable behave rudely to Mrs Meiklt? —Witness: I saw no rudeness on the part of the constable.—Defendant said that when he went home he shut the gate alter him. He heard some one ask if the g .te was locked, and Mrs Mei le replying in the affirmative. The constable pushed the gate open, knocking it violently against defendant’s wife, whereupon he (defendant) told him he deserved a horse-whipping.— His Worship said he had no leason to believe the constable was in the slightest degree the worse for liquor or had behaved rudely.— Defendant was fined 20s and costs. A I charge against the same defendant of driving at other than a walking pace was withdrawn. Assault. Paul Le Druy was charged by Marie Louise de dalle with assaulting her on Novembers.—Mr M'Keay for complainant and Air Adams for defendant. Complainant’s case was that the defendant called at her house on the day in question aud sent her girl emt fop beer. He then seized

complainant by the arms and kissed her, after which he to >k indecent liberties with her. He also tried several times to throw her on the ground and to ravish her, but was unsuccessful. Complainant then lefttheh mse and a Mrs Le Brico, who occupied a room under the same roof, returning some time afterwards found defendant coueealed in her bed —Mr Adams odled no witnesses, and baaed his defence, on the fact that the matter was allowed to lie dormant for live weeks. His Worship said that counsel for the defence had touche I on the only black spot in com, lainant’a case. The proceedings should have been brought much earlier, but se-ing tbht it was merely a charge of a sault he would nor. attch that importance to this delay as would htve been done iu the higher off uce. Defendant’s conduct had been very improper. He was fined 10s and o sts (iii eluding profe-sional coats) ; in default six days’ imprisonment, with hard 1 dior.