RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3705, 7 January 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, January 7. (Before T. A. Hansford, Esq., E.M.)

Larceny. —Ah Toy was charged by Ching Chee with stealing a silver watch from his dwelling-house. Mr Stout appeared for prosecutor, Mr F. R. Chapman defended.— Prosecutor, a market gardener at the For bury, stated that on going home on Monday last he found a window of his house broken and the watch, which had been left near the window, g. ne. He found close by a necktie belonging to prisoner. The wat ;h produced was witness’s. Cross examined : Accused lives near my house, within three hundred yards, and a number of other Chinamen also live in the neighborhood. I have been married, but my wife left me four years ago. Well, yes ; there is another lady. I have been living with another woman, who has two children of whom lam the father, Fhe left my house last Saturday, two days before the watch was missing. I don’t know why she left, lam not jealous of accused : I’m not jealous at alb I never beat the woman or ill-treated her. She made a row on Saturday and threw a tea-cup at my head, but missed it, and the cup went through the window. I told the police of the loss of the watch, and accused's house was searched on Wednesday. The watch was found there, under the pillow of accused’s bed. I never authorised anybody to take the watch.— Constable Roquey q.epqsqd to searching accused’s house, and finding the watch. —Uros<exaofined ,* Kp one directed me where to look for the When I found it accused said it piqst haye been put there, and had an angry discussion with prosecutor, - For the defense, Mr Chapman argued that the case was got up through jealousy, and that the watch may have been placed where it was found purposely. He called Esther Bella Faulkner, who said : I have lived with prosecutor for three years during part of which time hg used to knock rjie about and hammer ine, I left him on that account op Saturday last. Prisoner was a very good friend to mo, apd a very respectable man. Prosecutor was jealous of prisoner, and was always going on about my speaking to the latter. On Friday we had a rpw, prosecutor lifting his hand to me; upon which 1 threw a cup at him, which went through the window.— Moo Ay lived with prisoner, and on Monday evening the latter went to bed after supper, which meal they generally had at about half past seven o’clock. —The interpreter was then put into the box, and said that he had known prisoner for three years, and knew him to bear a very g. od character ; the prosecutor, however, was not of much account.—Mr C. Armstrong also gave prisoner a good character.— His Worship said the charge was one he could not decide. There was certain property stplen, aud it was found in the house of the accused. Thera \yas alao the suspicious circumstance of the finding pf the neck-tie. The case must be decided by a jury. Prisoner was oorumijited for trial ait tho next sessions of the Supreme Court, hut was admitted to bail—himself in L2O, and two sureties in LIO each.

BftEAwt oy the City Bye-laws.—Walter George Geddes was charged with letting off fireworks in the streets of the City or the morning of January 1, contrary to the bye* laws of the City.—Sub-Inspector Mallard explained that the charge and some twenty* four others were brought in order that his Worship might decide if breaches of the law had been committed. The custom of celebrating the incoming of the New Year by the letting off fireworks in the streets had of late years got beyond bounds. Hundreds of people assembled on the occasion just over, and the matter had become serious, as squibs, Chinese crackers, ami other fireworks were thrown at ladies am) other passers-by. The police, therefore, thought it their duty to take down the names of such people as they caught in thtf act. Of course, those wliQ wore summoned wore those who wore unfortunate one ugh to be recognised and detected. Witness then said that he saw accused letting ofl’ crackers iu the cutting.—J. M. Massey, town clerk: No persons had permission to let oft' fireworks in tho City on New Year’s morning. To apeusod : No permission was given to the Fire Brigade to let off fireworks on the occasion of their anniversary. —Accused ; I never had a cracker in my hand on the morning iu question.—Sub-inapector Mallard : That, your Worship, is tantamount to saying that I have committed perjury. I said just now that J. did not wish to call any witnesses, but now, iu justice to myself, I must ask to be allowed to do so.—His Worship thought that as the truth might be got at, a witness might be called.—George Wentford: Mr Gedd.es had no fireworks. Sub-Inspector Mallard ; Your Worship, will you allow rao to ask witness a question ? I did not wish to have to do so, but it is now necessary (To witness): Do you mean to swear that Mr Geddes did not light a match and apply it to crackers which you held ?—Witness : He did do that. 1 asked him for a match, and he struck it and lit crackers which J held.—His Worship (to accused); You have not told the truth, the whole of the truth, as you should have when sworn. A suppression of the truth I consider equivalent to telling a falsehood. I ana very glad indeed that the witness was called. You will be fined 10s and costs, —Other similar charges were then proceeded with, with the following results :-JG. Ward, fined 2s fid; G. Chapliji, 10s; H.

Walker* Is ; G. Fraser, 2i 6d ; A. Brown, 2s 61; Cr Wentford, 2s 6d ; H. Harper, 2s 61; I). Adams, 2s 61; H. t.ross, 2s 6d ; K. Houghton, 2s 6d ; D. Dyer, 2s 6d; Augus f e Fox, 2s 6d; Arthur Brown, 2s 61 ;W. Skitts, 2s 61; Tbos. Howell, 2s 61; B. Lowry, 2s 6d—with costs in each case. A few charges were dismissed, and two against William Duthie and S. Ooodeward were withdrawn, as the Inspector stated that these two solemnly pledged their words that they were non letting off crackers, and, he thought it poss ble he might in their cases have been mistaken. [Left sitting.]