RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3717, 21 January 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Thursday, January 21. Before J. Bathgate, Esq., K.M., and E. M olashan, Msq., J.P.)

Drunkenness.— Maurice O’Brien was let off with a caution; and Anne Mahony was fined 20s with the option of fourteen days’ imprisonmeut. , ‘

Charge of Theft. —George Humphrey was charged on the information of John Cocnrane with stealing, ou November. 2, one pair of watertight boots and one velvet vest, of the value of 1.2, the property of John Cochrane.— Accused had been in the employ of prosecutor, and ou the day on which he left his employment prosecutor missed the things and immediately informed the police. The vest was last night given to Constable Bain by accused’s father, and the boots were found in his swag. —For the defence, which Mr Stout conducted, it was contended that clothing (including the articles said to have been stolen) was given to accused in lieu of his wages at. the express wish of the lad’s father. —Mr Humphrey said that prosecutor called on him in November last and asked him about his son (accused). Witness told prosecutor that accused had given him a vest which he got from Mrs Cochrane, whereupon prosecutor threatened to charge accused with the theft of the same.—The Bench considered the case not p; o red, ane, without calling on Mr Stout for further evidence, discharged the accused. The Licensing Ordinance.— On a charge of a breach of the Licensing Ordinance—that ef permitting ale to be sold in his licensed house on a Sunday—against James Scanlan, of the Shamrock and Thistle Hotel, being called on, Mr Bathgate said as the very same question might arise that had been previously decided by him and was now going to the Supreme Court on appeal, it would not be expedint to go on with the case. —Mr Harris, who defended, said h : s client had he’d a general license for a considerable number of years, and that this was the nisi. case brought against him for any breach ot the Licensing Ordinance, His home had been always well conducted, and he asked the police to withdraw the charge in such a manner as to enable them to lay a fresh information, —Mr Bathgate: L presume you will take up the very same ground?—Mr Harris: Yes, and defend the case on its merits also. —His Worship: No good would be done by multiplying appeals. Whether restrictions’ under the Provincial Ordinance apply to a publican’s license was the point at present disputed, and it would be much better not to go on with the case at present. —The Sub-Inspector : That opens up the whole question of the Sunday liquor-selling.— or :;athsiate : I don’t think there is the slightest fear that respectable publicans will avail themselves of any doubt, because if any publican were-so foolish as to trade on a Sunday it would be quite sufficient for the police to bring that before the Licensing Court when he again comes up before them. lam not afraid of any tiling of that sort. —The charge was then withdrawn, without prejudice to fresh proceedings being taken at a future time. The informant, Thomas Rlayne, objected to this course, on the ground that he had instructed the police. Bastardy. Brodie v. Galbraith was an adjourned case in which defendant was summoned for refusing to support his illegitimate child.—Mr E. Cook, who defended on the previous occasion, said that, not having seen defendant, and having no he did not intend to take farther part in the proceedings.—The charge had been adjourned on the previous occasion, after evidence *had been taken, to give defendant an opportunity of answering to the summons. He was now called upon his subpoena, and, not appearing, Mr Bathgate said that he was quite satisfied that defendant was the putative father of the child, and ordered him to pay 10s per week and costs. Assault. —Eliza Toogood v. William Lloyd, fisherman, was an amusing but trivial charge of assault. Defendant was fined 10s and costs, and bound over to keep the peace for six months. Kussel v. M’Cutcheon.—Defendant, lessee of the Anderson’s Bay toll gate, was charged by complainant, for whom Mr Stewart appeared, with not giving him a toll ticket when passing through the toll gate. A ticket had been tendered, bpt not one giving Bussell exemption from all tolls within three miles. —Defendant said that he was not asked to give the ticket, or he would have done so.—His Worship held that defendant was bound to offer the ticket without being asked for it. He was fined 5s and costs. —Defendant said he had been unjustly dealt with by the Bench, who refused to near his defence.—His Worship; Silence j not another word.—Defendant: Well, I’m telling you my plain opinion of you. That’s not law.