RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 964, 22 May 1879, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before T. \V. Parkkr, Esq., R.M.) BREACH OP RAILWAY BYE-LAWS. The adjourned case against Roderick M'Kenzie, charged with having crossed over the railway line in Thames-street on the 10th instant in front of an approaching train, contrary to the railway byelaws, was again called on. Mr. O'Meagher, who appeared for the defence, called Dr. De Lautour, who deposed that he knew the defendant (Roderick M'Kenzie), and had been his medical attendant for the last two or three years. Within the last two or three months he had noticed an alteration in the state of his health. He considered that the defendant was suffering from softening of the brain. He saw defendant shortly before the 10th instant, and he then seemed devoid of intelligence. He could not understand what was said to him. Witness did not think defendant was in a fit state to take care of himself, or to be responsible for what he does. He is not sane ; he is insane,

His Worship remarked that when the case was previously before him, he had called attention to the fact that if the defendant was in the state in which he was declared to be, it was necessary that he should be placed under some control. He would like to know if the family proposed taking any steps to protect the defendant from danger, for if not, and he was allowed to wander about the streets unprotected, it would be necessary for the police to take him into custody and have him sent to the Lunatic Asylum. Mr. O'Meagher said that he believed the family would take steps to have the defendant carefully watched, Dr. De Lautour said he might state that the defendant's family had made arrangements for the defendant being constantly attended. His lunacy was of a harmless nature.

His Worship said that under the circumstances he would dismiss the case, but hoped steps would be taken to prevent the defendant again placing himself in such a dangerous position. iabcen?, Mary Morgan was charged with having yesterday stolen a hat from the Alliance Hotel.

Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Beatty prosecuted. Eliza Woven, a servant residing at the Alliance Hotel, gave evidence to the effect that yesterday she saw the accused in the hotel. She then had a man's hat on her head. Witness missed her own hat between 4 and 5 o'clock in the evening. She had left it in her bedroom. When she missed her own hat, she found the man's hat produced in her room. Mrs. Grant told her that she had seen the prisoner leaving the hotel with a hat like witness's on. She then followed prisoner down the street, and on her way met a constable, and told him of the matter. She afterwards met accused, who then had the hat on. Prisoner, on being told that she had witness's hat on, said she was looking for the house to take it back again. ° Witness then gave prisoner into custody for stealing the hat, Henry Howard, cook at the Alliance Hotel, stated that he had seen the ac* l

cused at the Alliance Hotel yesterday morning. She then had " a sort of billycock hat on." He had not given her a hat.

To prisoner : I did not take you upstairs into a bedroom. I did not give you a hat. Prisoner : Yes, you did give me the hat. Witness : It is an untruth, your Worship ; I never saw the witness before. Constable King gave evidence to having arrested the accused, who then had on the hat produced. On being told that she was arrested for stealing the hat, prisoner said that she had not stolen the hat, it had been given to her. She threw the hat into the street, and told the prosecutrix she might take her hat, and further said that if prosecutrix did not proceed with the case, she would pay her for the hat.

Prisoner reiterated the statement that Howard had given her the hat, and had told her that he would make it all right with the owner. His Worship sentenced prisoner to four days' imprisonment with hard labor. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Kate Fincher, a married woman, was charged with having made use of obscene, insulting, and threatening language towards Mary Davis at Reidston, on the 15th instant.

Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the prosecution.

The evidence of the prosecutrix and a lad named M'Kay was taken, and went to prove that the defendant had gone into the kitchen of the Medora Hotel, and there made use of language unfit for publication towards the complainant. During the hearing of the case the defendant frequently repeated the statements she had made with reference to the complainant's character, asserting that she could prove the correctness of the statement. At the close of the complainant's case, the defendant called her husband, who commenced giving evidence in support of the statement made by his wife, when Mr. O'Meagher protested against evidence of such a kind being taken, stating that the evidence was simply an aggravation of the offence. It was the most contemptible line of defence he had ever known to be adopted. In reply to a question, The defendant said : I have no more witnesses to call. I never made use of the language, no more than your Worship sitting on that bench. I can prove that the complainant lias often . His Worship : Mrs. Fincher, if there was any doubt in my mind as to your ability to make use of the language complained of, you are taking the most effectual means to remove that doubt. I do not know what your occupation at Reidston is. Possibly you may feel it to be your mission to improve the morality of Reidston, if there are any morals there ; but you go about the business in an extraordinary manner. You exhibit too much zeal, and I may possibly misunderstand your motive. But at the same time it is necessary to place some restraint upon the free use of your tongue, and I shall call upon your husband to enter into his recognisance for your future •rood behaviour.

The husband of the defendant was then bound over in the sum of LlO for the future good conduct of his wife, and ordered to pay costs amounting to L2 13s.