RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3711, 14 January 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

' Thursday, January 14. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., E.M.) Obscene Language. —A charge against Margaret Stokes ot using obscene language on the sth January within the hearing of persona passing in Arthur street, was withdrawn without prejudice by the police, Dischargi g Fireworks —Charles Everett was charged with letting off fireworks nt Caversham, on December 31.--William Feger, proprietor of the Good Templars’ Arms, a coffee and reading room at Caversham. said that his house on New Year’s Kve was surrounded by upwards of one Imndre i lads, the biggest boys having their £aces blackened Witness went out to drive th m away, wtien he was assailed by innumerable fireworks and stones, (daughter ) The bu iness portion of the town was taken up by the larrikins. Defendant was one of the “hand <-f niggers.” About twenty females sought refuge in his house, and witness had to escort them home. (Renewed laughter.)— Constable Rooney saw defendant discharge a firework on the night in question. Witness thep took him to Mr f eger for the purpose of identification. Defendant was the ringleader. —Mr Bathgate, who defended, submitted that the case ought to be dismissed, as the information was brough' under the section of the Act which provides for the discharge of missiles to the danger of any person. A cracker was not a dangerous missile,—His Worship ruled that anything thrown was a missile. He was inclined to think that the boys might have been brought up for rioting.—Mr Bathgate had no doubt that the constable’s evidence as to the boy letting off the cracker was false ; and would call evidence to that effect. —Henry Barnes, butcher, Caversham, Fred. Wilson, and George Bills were then called ; the two latter swearing positively that although they had been in defendant’s company all night they never saw him let off fireworks.—Defendant was fined 5s and costs, bis Worship rpling that any person in a disorderly crowd assembled for the pur pose of noting was equally responsible for the action of his companions, even though he be not the principal, Defendant might not have let off any crackers, but aa he was one of a crowd who were doing so he must suffer for their actions.

Vagrancy. Mary Allen was charged with being a rogue and a vagabond, having been previously convicted as an idle and dis orde ly person, and with now having no l-‘Wiul means of support.—Accused was sent to gaol fir a year. Illegal Hawking. William Lloyd was charged by James Goodman, market inspector, with hawking fish in Walker street without a license on December 22. —Defendant admitted the hawking, and in • he course of an amusin' address to the Bench said that King Charles the First had lost his bead ovep bad regulations, and ‘ if he (defendant) wete feed, a similar fat®

might befal seme of our c vie authorities, as th ; regulations providing for a hawker’s license had not been duly sanctioned. He miubt .state 'bat, if the Bench fined him, he would refuse to pay the money, and would elect to go to gaol } when he was released he would again h.»wk without a licence ; and if again ■ barged would sell his pioperty and take the matter to the Supreme Court.—Defendant was fined 10s and co»ts.

Bastardy.—Robert Galbraith, of Hogbur.«, was charged by Ellen Brodie with refusing to support an illegitimate child, of which he was the putative father. Mr M'Keay prosecuted, and Mr E. Cook defended —Complainant’s story was that in May, 1872, she went to service with a M;s Miller at the Hoghurn, and there made the acquaintance of defendant. Defendant pi o mised to marry her, and they first went out to wa’-k together shortly after, when defendant attempted to take liberties with her, but did not succeed ; and on the following morning she told Mrs Miller what had occured and was advised not to again go with him. Witness however kept company with him during the time she was in Mrs Miller's service. On the day before she came to Dunedin he took her to see his partner’s (Mr Hunter) hut, and the owner being out, he locked the door and said that there was no getting away that rime. He then succeeded in his purpose, and witness came to Dunedin on the following Wednesday ; and, in consesequence of what had occurred, she became pregnant, and was delivered of a hoy <>n May 30 the following year. She had not had connection with any man but defendant She had written to derendanb three or foui imes, but had received no reply.—Margaret vlilhr corroborated complainant’s e rider ci as to that port:on relating to what had trau suited between them on the morning follow ing the night on which defendant and comliiuant had walked out together.—Defendant had been subpoenaed by complainant but fni’td to appear, and his counsel could offer no evplana ion for his absence.—Vlj M'Keay wished a warrant to be issued for bis apprehension, but his Worship decided to adjourn t he case till this day week, saying that if defendant did not then appear he would be bound to take kis absence as a very material fact in considering the evidence ■j\ow taken.