CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4038, 4 February 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, February 4 (Before Y. fcyfcd, Esq , RM., and T. Birch, Esq.,- LP.) Drunkenness. -Margaret Lewis and John Kenny were each fined ss, in u. e * au lc 24 hours' imprisonment. Women’s Fehds.— Helena Hickey summoned by Parah Gorman for having and beaten her on the 3 let ult. bl r K-. Cook appeared for complainant. The battery consisted, according to c mplainant s snowing, in defendant accosting hj r while she was speaking to a “ gentleman? outside the tbea're on Monday night and u-ing bad language and atrik ng her. The Bench dismissed the case on account of its trivial nature. Mary Anne Suttqu was charged with as s ault : ng Alice M'Kn’ght. Mr L wis appeared 'or complainant, tndMr Cook defended. The alleged assault arose out of a dispute as to the occupancy of a house in the “Devil ? s Halfacre. Complainant stated that she went to take poss fcsioa of the bouse, when defendant came and disputed her right to do so, saying that she hj »d given a higher rent for the place Defendant then struck her with her bond, and the marks of defendant’s rings, of which there were ten, were now visible on her.—Lizzie Knight gave corroborative evidence.—For the defence, John Samuels and Alice Led-me were called, and they deposed that complainant w.’.s the first to nse violence.—Mr Cook was about to call the defendant, when the Bench remarked that they had heard too much of the matter already, and what they had heard had been of none to instructive a na'ure. Defendant was fined 20s an i cost-’. Alleged Bastardy.— Wm. Roberts, cabman, was charged by Mary Murdochs with neglecting to support an illegitimate child, four months old, of which be alleged to be the i utativo father. As the summons was only served at a late hour last nght, the hearing was fixed for Monday.

Greyv. Wihb.—Claim L 4 10a for the use and occupation of certain land, the property of plaintiff. Mr Strode appeared for plaintiff; Mr F. R. Chapman for defendant.—Plaintiff’s evid nee went to show that defendant had occupied the property in question for thirteen or fourteen years without paying any rent, simply putting on it some fruit trees. Plaintiff eventually offered to sell the propeity to defendant for L4O, and an agreement to that effect was entered into. Defendant, however, did not pay the amount, and would not give up the property,—His Wi rshio said defendant sat on the land without paying rent, purchasing price principle, or interest—a thing that the Court could no -slew. However, tbe-e was considerable doubt concerning legal points raised, and judgment would be reserved for the present.