RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5465, 2 October 1878, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, October 1. (Before T. A. Mansforci, Esq., R-M.) DRUNKENNESS. A new arrival was fined os., or in default fourteen days' imprisonment, for drunkenness. AN UNREGISTERED SHIPPING AGENT. P. A. Jones, restaurant keeper, Willis.sfereet, was summoned by the Collector of Customs for unlawfully acting as a shipping agent without being duly licensed for the name. Mr. Gordon Allan defended Mr. J ones. Prosecutor stated that he was the authorised shipping master for the port of Wellington. Witness had cautioned defendant some time ago, and told him to take a ticket out of his window stating that “ sailors were wanted.” Subsequently Jones brought a seaman named Keilson to the Custom Home fur tho purpose of shipping him ou board the British barque Chasca. Jones at this time took a receipt (produced) from the master of the Chasca as payment for shipping the man 10-ilaon. R. J. Ashwin, clerk at the Custom House, stated that Jones brought the man to the Custom House and shipped him. His Worship considered the case fully proved, and stated that as it was tho first of the kind brought before him ho would inflict a penalty of £5, but if Jones were summoned agam for the same offence the fine would be much heavier. ALLEGED RAPE. Henry Aldridge, a middle-aged man, was charged ou remand with committing a rape on Elizabeth Miriam Savill, a girl fourteen years of age, on the 14th June. . Mr. Buckley appeared for the accused. After hearing the evidence his Worship committed the accused to take his trial at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed accused, in his own recognizance of £SO and two sureties of £25 each. THREATENING LANGUAGE. John Pestridge, on remand, was charged with using threatening language to Inspector Atchison at the Kaituke railway station. Mr, Ti-aver,-, jun., appeared for tho accused, who was fined ss. and costs. CREATING A DISTURBANCE. Patrick Murphy and Philip Barron were charged by tbe police with fighting in the public streets. Prom the evidence of the police it appeared that Murphy knocked Barron down, but that the latter had no desire to fight. Murphy was fined 205., or in deiault 24 hours’ imp/isoument ; Barron, the other man, was discharged from custody. THE ROW AT THE NEWTOWN HOTEL. William Clout, Robert Carswell, W. Saunders, and Cox, were charged with wilfully and maliciously breaking the windows of the Newtown Hotel, the property of Mr. Haynes, on the 22nd ultimo.

Mf. Ollivier appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Gordon Allan for the defendants. from the evidence of the prosecutor it appeared that on the day in question the four defondants tried to gain admission to tho Newtown Hotel, which was closed. Prosecutor had closed tho hotel some time previous to the arrival of the defendants. They tried to gain admittance, and when they found the doors would not be opened to them they smashed some of the windows of the hotel. Robert Pebler, a man in the employment of the prosecutor, stated that the accused came to 1 the house on the evening in question. They made a great noise by knocking at the door. Witness would not let them in, because they were not travellers. He let one man in of the name of Ball. Frederick Fall stated that he was in the Newtown Hotel on Sunday, the 22nd ulfc. He heard, some people knocking at the door of the house. They tried all the doors, but did not gain admittance. The inmates of the house were alarmed by tho noise. Henry Wilson gave corroborative evidence. Constable Smart stated that when he served the defendant Clout with tho summons he said be ** would sooner give £5 than go to Court.”

Mr. Allan thought that there was no case to answer. He contended that there was no evidence to show that the damage was done maliciously or wilfully, and further, that neither one of the defendants had been identified as having broken the windows. ‘ His Worship considered that there was a case to answer, and observed that be considered the case fully proved, and that the damage had been done wilfully if not maliciously. . Mr. Allan thought that the evidence was very much exaggerated. From the evidence it was shown that any persona merely said they were travellers were admitted to the hotel in question. It w>s stated that the defendants bad gone to the hotel over and over again on Sundays, and had even been invited there by Haynes himself. Carswell, one of the defendants, sworn, said that.ho rode on horseback to the complainants hotel on Sunday evening. He had often been there of a Sunday evening at the invitation of Mr. Haynes. On the evening in question he jumped off his horse and knocked at the house for admittance, but was refused. He knocked at the door two or three times, but never broke any glass. He saw a light in the house and saw one man go in, and he did not see any reason why he (witness) should not be let iu. When Haynes asked him up ho usually said, ft Come up to the chapel to-night.” Chapel was tho name he gave his hotel. If he (witness) had been told to go ho would have done so.

The three other defendants made corroborative statements. His Worship considered the case clearly proved, and looked upon it as a joint offence, .and that it was wilfully committed. Had it not been for tho fact that tho defendants had been in the habit of going t» the hotel, his Worship said instead of inflicting a fine he would send the defendants to prison without the option of a fine. It was not to bo supposed that persons because they were denied admittance might with impunity break a landlord’s windows. Ho would fine defendants £5 and costs and £5 for tho damage done. Tho Court then adjourned.