RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4430, 1 June 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, Mat 31. (Before J. 0. Crawford, Esq., K.M.) DRUNKENNESS.

Ellen Graham was charged with having been drunk and incapable the previous Saturday. Kind friends had bailed Ellen out, and his Worship considered her offences would be washed away by the estreatment of the 20s. recognisance, which was accordingly ordered. Elizabeth Downey, an old offender, was again placed before the Bench on a charge of drunkenness, and, pleading guilty, was fined 205., with the_ alternative of seven days’ hard labor. John Wilson was fined ss. for a similar offence. ASSAULT. Henry Bell was brought up charged with having assaulted Mr. John Sloaue. The assault was unique in its way. Defendant, while in liquor on Saturday, had gone into Mr. Sloane’s tailoring establishment and demanded to be measured for a suit of clothes, but Mr. Sloaue, perhaps having a poor opinion of the state of his would-he patron’s financial position, declined the honor. Defendant retired to nurse his wrath, and shortly returned and gave Mr. Sloaue a few blows. The Bench

expressed its sense of the aggravated nature of the assault by imposing a penalty of 405., with the alternative of seven days’ hard labor in default. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Julia Patten was charged with having made use of obscene language on Saturday evening in a public place, to wit, the Theatre Royal. Defendant had posted herself in the vice-regal box, and made herself more conspicuous by disorderly conduct. Being visited by an officer of the police force, she treated him to selections from her choice vocabulary, and was taken into custody. With John Doring, a “buzzum friend ” of the gentle lady, “ fellow feeling is wondrous kind,” and he remonstrated with the sergeant on his ungenerous conductbut, “ alas, the days of chivalry are o’er,” and the unsentimental officer, so far from appreciating and approving the gallantry of Mr. Doring, returned to the theatre and took him into custody also. Both worthies were fined 205., in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. BREACH OF BT-LAW3. John Orr, for allowing cattle to trespass, was fined 65., with costs. BREACH OP THE LICENSING ACT. Charles Harris, transferee of a licensed house at the Upper Hutt, was charged with a breach of the Licensing Act, in having, after ten o’clock p.m., on 15th inst,, sold a bottle of brandy to one William Spriggs. Inspector Atchison conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Travers defended. George Bnwright gave evidence to the effect that he lived at the Upper Hutt; on the 15th he was at Waldin’s public-house ; went there about eight p.m., and stayed till eleven ; saw three men—Sheehan, Spriggs, and Gallagher—there, also Harris, the defendant, who was in the bar serving. Each of the three first mentioned bought a bottle of brandy; did not remember what was the time when Spriggs bought his bottle, nor did he remember who served the brandy. Inspector Atchison drew the attention of witness to the fact that when giving evidence on Friday last in the case Regina v. Sheehan and Gallagher, he had positively sworn that the brandy was served after 11 o’clock by Harris himself.

Witness : If I said that, I said what was wrong ; I was never in a court before in my life.

The Inspector warned witness to be careful or he would be charged with perjury; and again tried to refresh his memory from the depositions. Witness still persisted that he was ignorant of when and by whom the bottle was served, but believed it was served before 10 o’clock.

Inspector ; Have you had any conversation with Harris about this case ?

Witness : No ; I never spoke to him. Inspector : What ? Be careful Now, have you not had something to say to him ? Witness : I never spoke to him till just now outside.

Inspector : Ah! Then what did he say ? Witness ; He never said a word to me. (Laughter.) The Inspector said he would have witness arrested for perjury. In further examination witness said they were all drunk and he remembered very little about the occurrence.

To Mr. Travers : I was at Harris’s on Friday night, but I do not 'remember saying Harris must swear the same as I when he came into court, and that I would pay half the penalty. When Spriggs was robbed I was looking on. I did not rob him ; I was drunk. I do not remember breaking glass or fighting at Harris’s place on Friday night, nor do I remember saying he must swear the same as I did.

As soon as witness signed his deposition he was taken into custody. William Sprigg proved that he resides at the Upper Hutt. A robbery was committed on his person on the night of the 15th, after leaving Harris’s public-house. He was supplied with drink at Harris’s house till he got so drunk that he remembered nothing that was going on. He remembered nothing from nine o’clock at night till he found himself lying on the road next morning. He could say nothing about the time at which brandy was sold to Mm. This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Travers, for the defence, said that defendant had only taken possession of the house on the 15th, and naturally had a difficulty in controlling the men, which an experienced man would not have had. In fact, as he was instructed, the house had been completely rushed, and at 10 o’clock defendant called in the police to assist him in clearing the house. Eor the sake of defendant’s character, he wished Constable Lyster to state what had occurred at 10 o’clock.

Constable Lyster said he visited the place at five minutes past 10, at the request of defendant. He did not clear the house, but watched defendant do it. When the men left the house, they went quietly away in the direction of their work. He heard no noise after that. The men are employed on the railway works. Inspector Atchison said he admitted that defendant had asked the assistance of the police ; but when he had got the house clear, why did he not keep it shut, instead of allowing people to come in the back way. The fact was, a great many of the houses in this district were not conducted in a proper manner. Defendant said he had only been iq the house a fortnight, and it was not right to class him with the others.

Inspector Aitchison said it was clear that drink had been supplied to these men long after they became senselessly drunk, and that was not a very respectable way of doing business.

The Resident Magistrate considered the evidence insufficient to convict upon, though there could he no doubt that two or three bottles of brandy had been sold, and there w ; as every probability they were sold after hours? Certainly defendant had only just taken possession, and perhaps that was in his favor, but it was to be hoped he would take warning by this prosecution, and for the future keep the house in a proper and respectable manner. Under the circumstances, he would dismiss the case. Defendant expressed his thanks, and said he would take warning. PERJURY. William Enwright was then placed in the dock on a charge of perjury, and at the request of Inspector Aitchison was remanded for eight days. CIVIL CASE. Kearsley v. Slade, Action to recover tenancy of property and rent, £3. Judgment for amount, and defendant ordered to give possession of the property within a week.