MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 12, 13 June 1874, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURTS.

CHBISTOHURCII, Saturday, June 13. [Before C. 0. Bowen, Esq., 11.M.] DISOBEYING A SUMMONS. Edward Jenkins wus charged on remand with disobeying a summons for keeping a a disorderly house in High street. Inspector Buckley stated that the man Goss who had also been summoned on this charge had not yet been arrested, but lie was prepared to go mi with the case, and called James Hislop, bootmaker, High ftrcet, who stated that he lived opposite the house lately kept by Jenkins and Go6S. He frequently heard rows there and lately bad characters visited the place. He beliced it to be a house of ill-fame. Thomas Fahr, living; in High street, stated that he had heard conversations through the walls of the house. It was frequented by bad characters, some of them notorious prostitutes. He believed, the house was frcquor ted for immoral purposes. The accused was one of the proprietors. Chief Detective Feast had known the house for about two months. It was a regular den, and was frequented by notorious characters. There had been reports of robberies which had occurred there, and it was the worst house he had ever known in Christchurch. £t times six and seven of the worst class of women about Christchurch were to be seen there. Sergeant Kennedy stated that on the 31st of last month complaints were made to him about the house by some of the neighbours. He went in there, and found several bad characters in the house, and the accused with one of them. He turned the women out. The accused said that he was a stranger here, and had not long arrived from India. He did not know what sort of a house it was until very lately.

His Worship said that the present charge had been laid under the 27th clause of the bye-law, and he thought it should have been dealt with as one of vagrancy. The accused would be fined £o, or a month's imprisonment in default, but he warned him against keeping such a house again. If he did, he would be dealt with as a vagrant. DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Samuel Cotton, for being drunk, was fined 10s. INDECENT ASSAULT. John Mnuroe, Thomas Praser, and Ottaway, were charged with indecently assaulting Mary A. Kirkwood, on the 10th June. James O'Brien stated tint on the night of the 10th about quarter-past seven he heard a woman scream, and call for her husband, lie ran out, and saw the three men in Court having hold of the woman, whowas.lyiug on the ground drunk. He then took her to his house. The witness then stated all the circumstances as seen by him, and mentioned that the man Murroe was the worst of the three. The defendants said, in defence, that they were in the Devonshire Arms Hotel on that night, when the woman came in with a man whom she said was her husbaud. The man went out, and she said shortly afterwards that she wautcd to go to him. They all went out of the hotel together to find him, and then O'Brien came up and said he would take her to her husbaud. They had not in any way assaulted the woman. The defendants called Mr Lewis, landlord of the Devonshire Arms, who stated that the defendants and another man and woman were in his house that night having a drink. He did not approve of some of the women's conduct, and he put them all out. O'Brien, recalled, stared that when he took the woman to his house defendants weut there, commenced throwing stones at the house, and frightened his wife, who was still ill from the effects of the fright. They kept calling out "Let the woman go to her husband."

His Wo-ship said lie was very soiry to see respectable-look in {j men in such a position. From what Mr Lewis had seen of the woman's conduct while iu his house he was inclined to think that she was a party to the indecency, and l.e was more inclined to consider it a gross case of indecency rather than an indecent assault. The wilues" O'Brien had acted exceedingly well in doing as he had done, and bringing the case to the Court, but one bad feature of the charge was the defendants goiug back to mob the house of this witness. As the men were only new arrivals, and viewing the case as he did, he would give them another opportunity ; but he warned them of being guilty of any such conduct pgain. The defendant Munroe, who had been proved to be the worst, would be fined £4, and the otl ers £2 each and expense of wituers for two days attendance. O'Brien asked his Worship to remit the expenses allowed him to the Orphanage.