RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, NO TOWN.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1239, 19 July 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, NO TOWN.

Monday, Jtjly 15. _; (Before C. Wtiitefoord,TEsq., R.M.) Eugene Meehan was fined L 2, or one week's imprisonment, foe being drunk and disorderly at No Town, on the- 9th June. There was a second charge against the same defendant, and several previous convictions were* pub in; against him by the police The defendant did not appear in either case. Fined 20s, or 48 hours' imprisonment. '. 7 Ellen Sweeney was charged with using obscene and abusive language on the 7th J une. The police proved the charge, and called a witness named James Margerson, who heard the language complained of used. The defendant said a man came to : her house, and tried to forcibly enter it. He wanted drink, but she had none to give him, and in trying to get rid of ,him, she might have used strong language. The Magistrate said it was necessary to make an example to, put a stop 'to the conduct of persona like the defendant. The use of this offensive language was shamefully prevalent among women of the defendant's class, and on overy occasion on which the Court was held at: No Town complaints similar to the one now before the Court were made. The defendant would be fined. Ls, or, iv default, one month's imprisoiiment, with hard labor.' I"'*1 "'* The s&me defendant was charged with Hi.! : ..-,:...;■•.

selling spirituouß liquors without a license on the 7th July, at No Town. Constable Clarke 'said he was standing outside the house of the defendant on the day named. He heard the usual noises as of people drinking, and heard the defendant ask fpr payment of the price of four drinks sullied to one of the persons who were jnside. In answer M the 4 defendant^ the " witness said he did not see any money paid. James Margerson saia he was in . the house on 7th July. He saw drinks served by the defendant,' but she diiJ^nW* 1 "^ receive any money, as the person who had the drinks promised to pay her "when he' washed up." She refused. to serve any more drinks unless the witness was responsible. Another witness was called, who skid he was passing on his way home, and he went into the house of the defon* dant. He had a bottle of brandy with him^ f , from which he "parted," for Miss Sweeney u^ and her visitors. . He did this out of pure good nature, and did not receive payment. When those who were in the house had drinks. from the bottle, he took it; v away and went home. The Magistrate said the evidence was not conclusive, but he warned the defendant to change her mode of living, and cautioned her that if the police brought her up again, she would be more severely dealt withi - Case dismissed; * ; . ■ :v r '■'V.'J'i; •-- Anderson v;" Brenoh. — A charge,' of, r, using threatening and abusive language towards complainant by the defendant. The defendant purchased a share in. a> . claim from the plaintiff, and the dispute arose as to whether the calico cover and fly over a hut on the claim was included among the articles purchased. The plain* •- j tiff came to take these away, when, as he ; alleged, the defendant " promised to give a free passage down the creek" if he at- .. tempted to remove the fly. The evidence ' did not establish the charge, and the case waff I ' dismissed with cost and expenses against the plaintiff. .."■...;• .. . .Vr :' Mary Rice v. Edward Tuddr.-T-This ■.■». wJs a charge of assault against the defendant by striking the complainant on the „ face with a knife. Senior . ConstableV M'Mynn said the complainant came to the police camp and complained of the • assault. He produced a knife with which Hie assault was alleged to have com* ■ ffiffted, and a haukerchief saturated with - 'blood) flhich he obtained from the-com-plainant. The complainant, on being called, said the affair was accidental, although, when it first occurred, she thought the defendant injured J»er de- '' signedly. The witness was .evidently- \ determined to screen the defendant. The j police-stated the parties were living together, and the female especially was a terror and disgrace to the neighborhood. ; The Magistrate told the defendant that .he would discharge him on this occasion, but the police would have strict instruc- ; tions to look after him, and if. brought, before the Court again he would be sent ' to gaol. He was harboring a woman of notoriously bad character, and one/ who / had been previously convicted, and the€ were warned that if either of them again committed themselves, the district would be permanently rid of their presence. v* ' '"■;" uiyiii, oa'Sbs. .;' ■; '.', ''."",'■.,.''■ ' r Bi-aide v,. Maguire.— A claim of L 4 aB damages for destroying a sign-hoard, the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is 'the proprietor of the Cambria Hotel at : No Town. He rented the house, to the defendant, who/proceeded to make* alterations and re-decorations. In having the front of the house painted the sign .over the door was painted out. The' plaintiff said when he regained possession of jhw s house after the tenancy of ;the i defendant expired, he would have to get his 'old sign— a representation of the celebrated racing yacht — painted again, and /the, cost ( would be the damages ' he now claimed. The defence was that there was nothing in the agreement between the parties to prevent the defendant making what alteration he chose in the name of the, house. The agreement - was put in. The .magistrate said, whatever claim the plaintiff might have against the defendant when, the term of his occu_- r pancy expired, he had none now. Judg- 1 ment for the defendant with costs. Kebecca Pay men v. Henry Mitchell. — Apiaim of L 2, the value,, of four geese, •illegally detained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that she .bought the geese from the wife of the defendant, and paid her for them. The defendant said the L 2 the plaintiff paid- his, wife ► was to redeem some jewelry she pledged. The birds were ordered to be given up to the r plaintiff with full costs. Judgment for the plaintiffs with costs were" given in the. following cases: — Haiity v Sharkey,' L2O 5s sd ; Molloy v% Wilson, L 2 2s ; Same v Conlett, L 8 13« Bd. Judgment summons.- Amount to be \ paid in two months ; Margerson v Sweeney, L 5. The Court was adjourned, to 12th of August. ' " '■■' '. ; ;, :; !: f