NAPOLEON,

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 699, 12 July 1870, Page 2

NAPOLEON,

Fhiday, July 8. \ ' (Before C. Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.) James Woods was charged with, being ? drunk and disorderly at Napoleon, on the lQth June. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Drury appeared for defendant, .

The charge was proved, and the defendant was fined 20s, and costs. Frank Wilson was similarly charged. The charge was proved, and defendant was fined 20s, and costs. Frank Wilson v, J. Creed. — Assault. — Plaintiff said he was assaulted by defendant at his house at Napoleon, on 19th June. A good deal of evidence was taken on both sides, when the Court considered the charge proved, and, after severely reprimanding defendant, ordered him to pay a fine of L 3, and L 5 costs. MrDrury for plaintiff, and Mr Franklyn for defendant. A charge against the 3ame defendant, for assaulting Jas. Woods, was dismissed. The same defendant was* fined' 20s for keeping his house open after hours on 18th June. Michael Oavichavich was charged with obstructing and assaulting the police at Napoleon. The charge was proved, and defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of using abusive language and also to being drunk and disorderly. An immense amount of evidence was taken in this case. The defendant was a licensed publican, and the Bench, after giving him a severe lecture and caution, fined him L 5 for assaulting and obstructing the police in the execution of their duty, and L 5 for using bad language, and 10s for being drunk and disorderly, with the costs of Court, and 20s expenses to one witness.— Defendant's •wife -was charged with assaulting thepolice, but as it appeared she was to get her husband home, the charge was dismissed. Mr Drury for defendants. VAGRANCY. Cavichavich v. Jeffries. — A complaint laid by the defeadant in the last case that defendant had failed in the performance of his duty as a police constable, and had also rendered himself liable to be dealt with under the provisions of the Vagrant Act. Mr Drury for plaintiff, Mr Franklyn for defendant. Mr Drury opened the case by stating that the charge preferred against Sergt. .Jeffries wwats t divisible into two heads. First : That he had failed in the performance of his duty as a police constable ; secondly :that by his general conducthehad rendered himself liable to be dealt with under the Vagrant Act. An erronious impression seemed to exist that iio person could be charged under the Act who could show that he had lawful visible means of support, but he (Mr Drury) might point out that the Act applied to • persons associating with reputed thieves or convicted vagrants ; with people of notorious bad fame ; or for using obscene language within public hearing. He (Mr Drury) had no hesitation in declaring that all these facts could be proved against Sergt. Jeffries. He had thirteen witnesses to examine, and he would not detain the Court at greater length. " Mr Franklyn, who appeared for Sergt. Jeffries, asked that the information be at once dismissed. The information as drawn for the prosecution was one of the most astounding pieces of composition he (Mr Franklyn) had ever read. His Worship would observe that the charge ■was a general one, and gave neither date nor the character of the offence. It was a monstrous proceeding to charge any person with an indefinite offence, for a person so charged had no opportunity given him of defending himself. The greatest criminal always had the right and privilege of knowing how and why a a charge was brought against him, and surely the defendant in this case, a tried and efficient public servant, should have the same consideration shown Mm. He (Mr Franklyn) regretted to think, and to be obliged to inform the Bench, that the charge sought to be preferred against Sergt. Jeffries could be shown, if evidence was to be given, to have in a great measure arisen from one-sided and malicious motives. The present prosecution was merely an underhand attempt on the part- of certain persons to injure Sergt. Jeffries, who had gained the ill-will of the persons to whom he alluded, because he (Sergt. Jeffries) did his duty too well to suit them. Although he (Mr Franklyn) thought his duty to his client required him to make this application, Sergeant Jeffries would in reality have been pleased with having this opportunity of producing evidence to show his Worship and the public that his character and conduct while in charge of the police at Napoleon could bear the scrutiny of the whole inhabitants of the coast. Since the prosecution had been instituted, the the majority of the respectable inhabitants of the place had voluntarily come forward, and stated their intention to bear •'testimony as to the sergeant's efficient performance of his duties, and as to his good behavior. He (Mr F.) again trusted his Worship would not for a moment entertain such a vague charge, but would dismiss the information on the ground that it was informal. Mr Drury contended that the information contained all that was necessary. 'Twas true the Act made provision for dealing with a police constable ; but this was only in one particular respect where a penalty could be enforced. The other provisions of the Act had reference to any person who associated with vagrants, or used obscene language within hearing of a public place. It surely could not be urged that an act committed, which would be an offence if done by one Of the public, became no offence if perpratrated by a police«man. If Sergeant Jeffries had so mauy ■mtnesses ; why urge the objection raised 1 It would be more creditable to be acquitted upon the merits than to evade the charge by a technical objection. His Worship said that the objection was fatal. There was no date given in the in formation, and he held that there was only one section of the Vagrant Act which applied to the police, and that section did not in any measure bear upon the case then before the Court. A charge of this sort again&t a member of the. Police Force \ should be submitted in the shape of a report to the Inspector, and not have formed the subject of proceedings in that Court. If a case could fairly be made out against the police, he would at all times feel disposed to punish them more severely than other members of the community. Without imputing any improper motives, he might say that he considered it an error of judgement in bringing the case before the Court. . MrDrury: Will your Worship allow me to withdraw the information, so that another may be laid ? His Worship : No. The information is dismissed. CIVIL CASES. William Mollin v. Elizabeth Bourke.— A claim for L 7, cash lent. Plaintiff said

defendant and another young woman were in partnership in an hotel at Napoleon. They agreed to dissolve partnership, and he lent defendant the money sued for to make up a sum to buy her partner out. Defendant admitted having received the cash, but she said it was a gift from plaintiff. Had often had a similar present from plaintiff, but it was always given without any consideration. On one occasion plaintiff offered himself and L2O if she would marry him, but she declined to accept the money encumbered with any such condition. If plaintiff had not summoned her it is likely she would have returned the money to him. Emma T. Griffiths gave evidence in support of defendant's case. In answer to Mr Franklyh the witness said that defendant told her that if plaintiff had not sued her she would pay the money. Verdict for the amount claimed with costs. Mr Franklyn for plaiutifi, Mr Drury for defendant. M'Masters v. Drury. — A claim for L 9, the value of a watchchain. Plaintiff admitted that defendant had paid L 3 on account. Defendant alleged that he paid L 5, which was to be considered a settlement in full, and he applied for an adjournment to enable him to produce two witnesses to prove that plaintiff had acknowledged in their presence that the chain wa3 paid for. Adjourned till next Court day. Mr Franklyn appeared for plaintiff, the defendant in person. The bailiff of the Court v. Marr and Lock. — This was an interpleader case. Sergt. Jeffries said he seized the house in dispute to satisfy a judgment obtained against Thomas Minton by Messrs Strike and Blackmore. Defendants claimed the property by virtue of an absolute bill of sale. H. Skead said he was a witness to the sale, and saw the money paid. Thos. Minton said he sold the house to Marr and Lock, and he was in debt to them still. He was merely living in the house on sufferance. The Court considered defendants had made good their claim, and ordered the bailiff to withdraw with costs. Julia M'Merney appeared on a fraud summons at the suit of Jacob Pollock. Defendant was ordered to pay 10s per week until the judgment be satisfied. The Conrt adjourned to August sth.