RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1220, 15 March 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

. THIS £AY\ (Before i\ W. Parker, Esq., E..M.) DRUNKENNESS. William Hamilton was charged with having been drunk and disorderly in Thames-street yesterday morning, and pleaded guilty. He was discharged with a caution. ; BREACH OF THE AQ3\

William ]sQrg£tfl Southan, the licensee of the JSforth Qfcago Hotel, was charged with having, on the 7th day of March, sold to one Rachael Haymes a quantity of brandy in a flask, contrary to the Licensing Act. the said 7th day of March being a Sunday, and the said Rachael Haymes not being either a bona Jidq lodger in the hotel or traveller, Ingpectop prosecuted, and ]V|e. ifgwtflft appeared for the defendant. r Rachael jfaynies deposed to having on the (foy in question gone to the North QfcagQ Hotel, in company with another girl, and then saw the defendant. She applied for a bottle of brandy, and after a great deal of trouble, she succeeded in getting what she wanted. S,h© did not know whether or npt she paid for the brandy t but did not think she did pay. On leaving the hotel, outside she met a constable, who took the bottle from her. ■ To Mr. Newton : Witness stated the constable tgofe the bra,ndy fro,m her. gaying f 'i You will 'have ten give me that bottle. &he gone for- the brandy for 3 woman who had been confined and was aiok. She did not remember whether she had told the defendant for what purpose she wanted the bandy, but thought it probable that she ha,d done so. ■ : ■■ ; To* His Worship : "Witness said that she had been to the hotel frequently on week days. She had never 'rim vip, a " sccrg" there. - ■ V "" ' ' Constable M ; Oaughran gave evidence to having seen the last witness on the day in question, with something like a: jug under her shawl, enter the North Otago Hotel. When she came out she'had a flask of brandy in one hand and the jug with some beer in it in the girl natpgd Jlajqilton was witi the last; witness, He obtained the flask of brandy from the last witness, who made no objection to give it to him. He went to the hotel with the last witness, who there pointed out Mr: Southan as the person who had served her with the liquor. Witness asked Mr. Southan what he had to make for- serving giylg on.a Sunday, and he said he'did It to get rid of them. There was no statement made in Mr. Southan's presence as to what had been paid for the brandy. He believed the last witness was sober at the time. To Mr. Newton : Witness said he would not swear that the contents of the flask was brandy, but he believed it to be brandy. He might have been thirsty on the afternoon in question, but had nothing to do wjtli his taking the brandy from the girl. . , . ■ ■' Tliis closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Newton said that the case was one of such a venal offence as to gall foy the infliction of a fine, If the brandy had been— fis wag highly probably- the easeobtained for a person who was sick, he held that, although there- was exception made in the Ordinance, the Bench :would not inflict a fine. The defendant was charged with the sale of; the liquor, while the most he had been; guilty of was supplying,. for in order to constitute asale there must have been payment, of which there was no evidence. Again he submitted that no evidence had been given to prove that the witness who had ob-; tained the liquor was not a lodger in the house. He asked that the case might be dismissed.

His Worship said that as $ sgt og want of any sirp.§t aviplgnthat the witless was npt a Rodger, they had. the fact that she was seen to enter the house with a jug in her hand, and the presumption was that, as it was Sunday, she had riot been out to purchase the jug. Again, ' had she been a lodger, there would have been no occasion for her experiencing so much difficulty in obtaining the liquor. The presumption was that the defendant Would not supply liquor without payment, and, although the case was not a very flagrant one, he felt that it was one in which he must inflict a fine. The defendant was then fined 20s. TETHERINCf HORSES QN" A SOAB. Wijliarn Joseph Williams was charged with having, contrary to the Public Works Act, tethered a horse on the public road at 'Awamoko. The Ranger stated that complaints had been made that the tethering of horses had very nearly caused accidents. He had on a previous occasion impounded four of the horses of the defendant, who was a contractor under the County Council, but this had had no effect in in(Juping the defendant to desist from further breaches of the law. He 4id not press for a heavy penalty, but wished to let: the defendant know that he could not continue the practice. The defendant stated that he had endeavored to obtain a paddock for his horses, but had failed to do so. His Worship inflicted a fine of 10s. ASSAULT.

: John Cook was charged with having, on the 6th March, at Livingstone, assaulted James M'Quade. Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Newton for the defendant, ' Mr. Zfewton said that in order to save tipje the defendant was willing to admit the assault, and permit his Worship to deal with the case at once. To this Mr. O'Meagher demurred, claiming that the assault was one of an aggravated nature, and that the evidence for the complainant was entitled to be heard, in order that his Worship might be able to judge of the extent of the assault.

The evidence of James M'Quade (the complainant), Alexander Wolfe, and Charles F. Roberts was taken, and went to show that at the meeting called for the, purpose of electing a School Committee therp was spine unpleasantness, As the complainant ■yras leaving fchp school:room where the meeting was held, the defendant met him, and called him a '*•' whitewashed psalm-singer," and

complainant replied, "We have had a specimen of the vulgar majority to-nigHt. " Defendant then spat in the face of complainant, who returned the compliment;' Defendant again called the complainant a " white-washed psalm-singer," and the complainant retorted with some references to the defendant having attempted to set up a claim to a bullock belonging to some other man. Explanations with reference to . this bullock business followed,:' and the parties separated. The complainant wended his way home, and when within about twenty paces of his house, he saw the defendant and his brother go up to his house and knock at the door. He heard the defendant ask if " Mac " was in, meaning the/ complainant. The reply being in the negative, the Cooks left the house, and, going away along the road upon which complainant was : travelling, met him within ten paces of the house. The defendant muttered something, and struck eomplainant two blows-r-one. on the left ear and the other on the right eye. He: knew nothing more until he felt somebody-scrambling over him, and the first thing he recognised was his wife's voice and the cries of his children. He was bleeding from the eye, nose; and ear. ,

The defence was that provocation had been given to the defendant by the complainant, and that the blows had been the result of a quarrel in which both parties ■had taken part and was the outcome of an acousation of what amounted to an indictable offence against the defendant. His. Worship, alter, going over the main facts of the case, fined the defendant L2 IQs and oosts.