RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5070, 23 June 1877, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, June 22. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS.

George Bound was charged on remand with being an habitual drunkard. When brought up a week ago he was in a state bordering on lunacy from heavy drinking. Defendant owned to having taken too much liquor, but pleaded not guilty to being an habitual drunkard. Sergeant Price stated that defendant had been drinking for a considerable time, and wheiv arrested was in a very bad way. There were a number of previous convictions recorded against him. Inspector Atcheson said a warning would perhaps do the man some good. Defendant asked to bo let off this time, and he would in future abstain from drink. Ilis Worship warned defendant that his score of convictions was running up, and he •would if a'uvin convicted be liable to aseutence of three months’imprisonment. Ontbisoccaaion, as he had been in gaol on remand for a week, he would be dismissed, but must be careful not to make his appearance before the Court again. breach of the merchant shipping act. James Welch, Thomas Murphy, Robert Petit and Henry Holmes, seamen belonging to the barque Weunington, were charged witli having committed a breach of the Merchant Shipping Act by refusing to do duty. Isaac Sherwood, captain of the Wennington, stated that when the vessel came into port the men came aft in a body and wanted their discharges. He told them that ho would not give them their discharges until they arrived in London. They then requested to be put ou shore in order that they might see a magistrate, and were told that their request could cot at that time he complied with, as the captain could not get ashore to transact his own business. The men were then ordered to turn to, and the prisoners refused. The captain thou made an entry of their refusal in the log book, aud read it out to them. Prisoners stated that the captain had been in the habit of using threatening language to the men on the voyage, and they refused duty on this occasion because they had been overworked.

Captain Sherwood gave this statement an emphatic denial. Mr. Crav/ford remarked that the prisoners were perfectly entitled to see a magistrate on coming into port ; hut their wish should not be inconsistent with the performance of their duties. They had no business to disobey orders in the present instance, and he should therefore s<e,i, nee them to seven days’ imprisonment, who hard labor. HTJ.ALJM; KKO.II A DWELLING, Matthew K was charged on remand with stealing /in a dwelling-house one bank note vao. , HO and four £1 bank notes.

Phillip Keece deposed : Prisoner lodged with me at the Criterion, and slept in the same room. I remember the 15th of this month. I left my room in the morning to go to work. I left my portmanteau locked up ; in it was a £lO note and four £1 notes. The portmanteau was close to my bed. The £lO note was from a bank in Christchurch. I returned to my bedroom in the evening at about C o’clock* I found the lock of the portmanteau entirely smashed, and the notes were gone. Prisoner left the house that evening, and did not return till Saturday night. Prisoner knew that I had the money in my portmanteau ; I told him so when we were living in another house. Besides myself and prisoner, a man named Michael O’Sheebau slept in the same room in the Criterion Restaurant.

Michael O’Sheehan: Preside at the Criterion Restaurant, Molesworth-street. Last week I was sleeping in the same bedroom with the last witness and prisoner. On Thursday last 1 had occasion to go to the bedroom at about 2 o’clock. Prisoner and I went up together. Prisoner said to me that the old man had shifted, and that he and Reece were going to shift with him. Prisoner also told me that Reece had told him to watch his portmanteau, as it had some money in it. I saw prisoner again in the evening. I left prisoner in the bedroom in the afternoon. The money was missed at about 6 o’clock in the evening.

Alex. Loheuet deposed : I am the proprietor of the Criterion Restaurant, Molesworth-street. On Friday last I had occasion to go to the bedroom with Keece, who wished to enter his room. We found the door fastened. I knocked ; prisoner answered, opened the door, having in his hands the door handle. Prisoner was sitting on Reece’s bed when I entered. Prisoner went away that evening, and I did not see him until Saturday night. On Sunday a purse was handed to me containing £7 and a receipt for a watch. I handed the purse and contents to Sergeant Farrell.

Hugh Maudesley deposed : I remember meeting prisoner at a house in Brougham - street on Friday night last. Saw prisoner there. I was asked by the occupant of the house if Iliad change for a £lO note. I gave her change in nine £1 notes and two half sovereigns. The change was for prisoner. The note was on the Bank of New Zealand. I saw prisoner buy a watch on Saturday; he gave 30s. for it. This is the. watch produced.

Mauritz Lytzen deposed ; I am a seaman. I am stopping at the Criterion Restaurant. On Sunday last I found in the water- closet a purse containing seven £1 notes and a receipt, which I handed to the landlord of the house. The purse produced is like that which I found. 11. Maudesley, recalled, stated the numbers of the notes he gave prisoner in change for the £lO. These numbers corresponded with the numbers of the notes produced. Detective Farrell said : Ou Monday, the ISfch of this month, the landlord of the restaurant in Molesworth-street handed to me a purse containing £7, the numbers of the notes corresponding with those given by the last witness. This concluded the evidence, and prisoner was committed to take his trial at the next sittings of the Supreme Court. ALLEGED ASSAULT. Lanritz Laiseu (a Norwegian) was charged with unlawfully assaulting Andrew Neil-on. Complainant deposed that he was a miner. On the 16th of the present month defendant came to the house druuk and insulting, and assaulted witness badly. John Jansen said defendant came into the house and wanted to fight him. Neilson pushed him in a bucket. Defendant then took up the bucket and threw it at Neilson.

Defendant said he went to Neilson’s place, and there a difference arose in consequence of defendant not being able to pay Neilson some money he owed him. Neilson wanted to fight, and defendant, after being knocked down on a bucket, took up the bucket- and placed it on Neilson’s head. The case was dismissed, with costs.