RESIDENT MAGISIRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 29, 15 June 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISIRATE'S COURT REEFTON.

Thubsdat, Junb 14, 1877. [Eefore Edwabd Shaw, Esq., E.M.] VAGBANCY. Mary Eranen, was charged, upon the information of C. L. Neville, with having no lawful visible means of support, and farther | with being the keeper of a house at which women of ill" fame and convicted persons congregated. Mr Staite appeared for the defendant. Sergeant Neville having briefly opened the case, the following evidence was taken :— Sergeant Neville— On the 3rd instant, between 12 and 1 a.m., I was in tbe street and passed by defendant's house. There was a very great disturbance there. I remained outside for some little time, and recognised the voices of some of those within. I recognised the voice of a woman known as " Irish Annie," who is a prostitute and constant frequenter of defendant's house. This woman has until lately been living with defendant. On different occasions robberies com* mitted by that woman have been reported | to the police. The door was closed, and I knocked, but tbe noise was so great that I could not make myself heard. I believe that singing and drinking was going on inside. Have known this woman for eight years past, and she has during that time been of ill repute, and prior to her coming here she served a sentence of nine months, at Waimea, for parjury, then came to Eeefton and commenced her nefarious trade. She brought up women to live with her who I know were prostitutes. Amongst those who are in the habit of visiting defendant's bouse is Maud Macnamara, who has been ordered tinder the surveillance of the police as an idle and disorderly person. ; Cros«»examined— Have heard that defendant is a married woman; have no reason to doubt it. She told me a few weeks ago that she bad not heard from her husband for years. Will not undertake to say that she has not received maintenance from her husband. Do not know whether the property she lives in is hers. If the property she lives in is not her's, I suppose it is her husband's. •'lrish Annie " was living with defendant for several months. Will not undertake to say that defendant has not paid waves to " Irish Annie." I will not sTear that sbe has no money. She keeps a brothel, and sells bad drink. Maud Macnamara was warned by the police for vagrancy, and was under the surveillance of the police. The house is a perfect nuisance to tbe neighbors, and it was in consequence of complaintf from respectable neighbors that the charges were laid. If tbe house was peaceably conducted the police would not have interfered, I warned the defendant before summoning her that unless she conducted her house in a quiet manner proceedings would be taken against her. Constable Jeffries—Have known defendant for five years, and during that time ahe has been, keeping a brothel. Latterly numerous complaints have been made to the police as to the disorderly way in which she conduoted her house. The house is frequented by noted bad characters. Three women named Macnamara," Irish Annie," and Mary O'Mera constantly visited the house. They are all noted bad characters. I know that Maonamara was convicted of sly grog selling, and of being an idle and disorderly person. Frequently heard singing and disturbance in the house at late hoars. Cross-examined— Macnamara was conconvicted in this Court. Defendant was in gaol at the time. Tbe woman O'Mera Was convicted at Ahaura. Both those women were constantly at defendant's. Arthur Brown— l unfortunately live opposite defendant's. She is not a desirable neighbor, and I have had to complain frequently to the police. On several occasions great disturbances have oc* curred there oatuing serious inoonvenienoe to me through want of Test. There has been singing at all hoars of the night and of a Sunday, and frequently disturbances both in and out of the house. The noise of persons knocking at defendant's door for admittance at night, is also a great nuisance. Drunken men frequently go* in and out of the house. William Beokham— l am night watchman. I know defendant. On Sanday morning at 3 o'clock, I wan called upon by a neighbour of hers to go and put a stop to t disturbance there. I went down, and when within 100 yards of the place, I heard noises and swearing, and something about " one shilling a corner." Believe gambling was going on. Saw defendant and cautioned her. Have been called upon every week for inontliß past to check similar disturbances at her house. Cross-examined- Directly I complained she put out the lights and the disturbance ceased. He-examined — I have seen women going in and out of defendant's place. Always considered them as boatders at the house and not merely visitors. They are the worst characters ia the town.

Hans Jacobsen— l lire next door to defendant. Haw frequently had occasion to complain to the police f.s to the manner in which defendant conducts her house. Ha7e ieen women of ill-repute aboit tbe place, and frequently heard bad language made use of. Drinking is carried on there, and I am frequently disturbed at 2 B!id 3 o'clock in tbe morning by tbe noise of glasses falling. This closed the case for the prosecution. Defendant— l am a married woman. I was married in Beefton. I forget the cleryman's name, but I hare got my marriage line* at home. My husband is now in Melbourne. When I got into trouble for perjury he left me. It is more than two years ago. I hare re. ceived money a couple of times from my husband. He nerer earned mnch as he could not get work. I own the house I life in, and value it at £250. I hare got money besides. lam trying to sell tbe property. It has been on the paper for a fortnight. « Irish Annie " Hred with me for a few weeks. I did not know that either Macnamara or O'Mera had been conricted. There hare been disturbances n my house. By the Bench— lt is twelve months since I received a remittance trom my husband. I bought the house myself. Nerer told Sergeant Nerille that I was going to Nelson Creek. He advised me to go there. This closed the case, and Mr Staite addressed the Court for the defence. He pointed out that in order to fix defendant with the charge of permitting convicted persons to frequent her house it would be accessary to prove that she was aware of such convictions. The police had failed to prove this, and the defendant herself had sworn that she did not possess that knowledge. For this reason then the charge would hare to be dismissed. At to the charge that she had no lawful means of support, it had been proved that she was possessed of property to the value of some £200, and moreover that she was a married woman. Consequently there could be no charge at all against her. His Worsdip said that the informations could not be sustained. It was much to be regretted, but owing to the loop-hole which the law allowed there was no other course open to him. He said that there was another way of reaching defendant, and if she made her house obnoxious to her neighbours, they could proceed against her civilly for the recovery of damages. He strongly recommended defendant to quit the town, and aaid that if she did not other steps would bo taken against her. The Court then adjourned.