RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1075, 8 January 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Saturday, January 6. (Before W. H. Revell, Esq., R.M.) Hugh Doherty, landlord of the Alliance Hotel, was charged with a breach of the Vagrant Act, for allowing prostitutes to assemble at his house. Sub-Inspector Hickson stated that on the 2nd instant, defendant held a ball at his house, at which he permitted prostitutes to meet. The clause under which he brought the charge was the 3rd clause of the "Amended Vagrant Act, 1869," and which was as follows : — "Any person who shall keep or have any house, shop, room, or place of public resort, wherein provisions or liquors of any kind shall be sold or consumed, who shall knowingly permit or suffer prostitutes therein, shall, for every such offence, be liable to a penalty of not more than L5." On the night in question, there were over a dozen prostitutes dancing and drinking. Sergt. White stated that on the night of the 2nd inst., he cautioned defendant against allowing prostitutes to attend the ball, and he replied that they were the only class of women who would attend it. He went to the hotel at 12 o'clock at night, but there were none there at that time. Constable Cashion stated that he was on duty on the night of the 2nd, and was in and out of defendant's hotel till about 3 o'clock the next morning. He saw a number of prostitutes— Emma Thatcher, Maria Gardner, Rose Summers, Fanny Venables, Elizabeth Stanford, Maggie Russell, and others. They behaved quietly, and he saw no improper conduct. Mr Perkins, in defence, urged that the women had been to other balls, and no notice was taken by the police. They had behaved orderly, and he thought that the section should be read in the spirit of the law, not literally. Mr Sub-Inspector Hijkson objected to remarks of Mr Perkins relative to the conduct of the police in not taking notice of the attendance of the women at other public-house balls. It implied a neglect of duty which he repudiated. The defendant stated that he was a stranger in Greymouth, and had attended nearly all the balls that had been held in it; had always found the women at them, and therefore he was not aware that he was breaking the law. His Worship said it was very clearly proved that the law had been broken, and as to defendant saying that he was a stranger and did not know the character of the women, he did not put the slightest credence in it, as it was well known that they were notoriously bad characters. He should fine him L3 and costs. Catherine Mary Lawrence v. Mrs Killeen. This was a summons for assaulting the son of plaintiff. Messrs Guinness and Perkins appeared for the plaintiff; the defendant did not appear, but sent a medical certifice. His Worship decided to hear the case. David Lawrance stated that he was ten years of age, and son of plaintiff. On Wednesday, the 27th ult., Mrs Killeen, who is a neighbor living on the opposite side of the Tainui street tramway, came to his mother's house and, opening the door, caught hold of him, and, pulling him outside, knocked him down and commenced beating him. She struck him on the head, raising a lump, and beat him about the nose and mouth till they bled. He did not say anything to her that day, but on the Saturday previous he threw a chip at her. His mother was out of work at the time. Charles Kettle, a little boy, stated that he saw Mrs Killeen beating Lawrance. He was down on the ground, with his nose and mouth bleeding. She was hitting him with her fists. Mrs Chase, another neighbor, also gave evidence as to witnessing the assault. Fined 10s and costs. Rose Summers v. Emma Griffiths alias Thatcher. — An action for using abusive language. Mr Guinness for plaintiff, Mr Perkins for defendant. Both plaintiff and defendant are "gay women," and on the the morning of the 3rd inst. they were at Doherty's ball, and when plaintiff, who was accompanied by "another lady" named Venables, went in the defendant said " I am going to get blind drunk, and walk into the 'Black Angel,' " alluding to Venables. Defendant then asked plaintiff what her name was, and she replied, "No. 1," but would prefer "No. 2," meaning champagne. Defendant then made use of such bad language that plaintiff would not repeat it, but she had written it down. Plaintiff and her friend left, and went to another ball, after which they went home. Shortly after she had arrived home she heard a noise at the door, and on going to an upstairs window she saw defendant and Miss Gardiner. Defendant challenged plaintiff and Miss Venables out to fight, after which she threw a stone at the window and broke it. She did not return the bad language. Fanny Venables and Harry Wright corroborated the above statement. The defendant denied using any bad language at the ball. Miss Gardiner had lost some property, and she asked Miss Venables for it, and she commenced to abuse defendant. On her way home she heard that her husband was staying at the "Black Angel's," and she went round to ask for him, when Venables and plaintiff commenced abusing her. There were several gentlemen present at the time. Maria Gardiner stated that she was in company of defendant at the ball, but did not hear her make use of abusive language. His Worship fined defendant 10s and costs. Same v. Same;— An action to recover 30s, for wilful destruction of property. This case arose out of the preceding one. Plaintiff stated that defendant went round to her house, took up a stone, and threw it through a window, breaking it, and the rain damaged a carpet and the paper on the wall. She could not find the stone. Fanny Venables coroborated the statement. The defendant admitted picking up a stone, but did not throw it. The window was broken by plaintiff "slamming it down." She went to plaintiff's house to look after her husband. Maria Gardiner stated that no stone was thrown. His Worship dismissed the case.