RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1224, 19 March 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before T. W. Parker, Esq*, Rjyi.) DRUNK AND DISOBJMSBXY. * For having been drunk and disorderly, Michael Henry was fined 255, with the alternative oi three days'' imprisonment; James Kelly and Patrioh Welch were each &ned 20s, with the alternative of three |days 1 imprisonment; Edward Slattery, Edward Smith, alias Charles Cruickshank, and David M'Farlane were each fined ss, with the option of going to gaol for 24 hours ; John Mills and Michael O'Brien were each cautioned and discharged. Hector Beaton was charged with having been drunk and disorderly and with making use of obscene language. On the first charge he was fined. 55,, with the alternative of three days' imprisonment, and upon the second charge was fined 40s, with the option of g.oi,ug to gaol for six weeks. ASSAULTING THE EOLfiCE, Alexander Lockhead was charged with having assaulted Sergeant Beatty on the racecourse yesterday whise in the execution of his duty. , The evidence went to show that the Sergeant was speaking to one of the persons carrying on a business on the course without paying their fees, and a large crowd collected round them. While thus engaged, the defendant struck the Sergeant on the left ear. Sergeant Beatty turned arid, saw the prisoner drawing back his arm, and arrested him!. The prisoner- was sentenced to one month'?, imprisonment, with hard labor. PALS® KUSTENOES. Hugh Borland was charged with having, op the 17th instant, obtained certain goods and money to the value of L 5, from J. H. Milligan, by means of a valueless cheque. The prisoner pleaded guilty, and was remanded until Monday for the production of evidence.

LUNACY. Charles Hart, charged with being of unsound mind, was, on the certificate of two medical men, committed to the Lunatic Asylum. BREACH OF CORPORATION BY-LAWS. E. Hutton was charged with having committed a breach of the Corporation by-laws by exposing goods for sale in such a manner that they encroached upon the footpath in Thames-street. Mr. Balmer appeared for the prosecution. ■ . Arthur Toms, Inspector of Nuisances, stated that at 12 o ? clock on the 15.th inst. he saw a lot of drapery goods exposed for sale at the door of the defendant's shop. They were hanging over the footpath six or eight inches; He. drew the defendant's attention to. the matter and the fact that he should take them in. At two. o'clock he again saw; the,, goods stijl exposed as before. He told the defendant that hehad taken no notice of his warning; The ness to the Council; for his interference. ; Constable Cleary gave corroborative evidence s to the encroachment of the goocU. the footbath..

The defendant then made a long statement to the effect that the goods in question were not overhanging the footpath, and that he expected to have had! witnesses to prove the correctness of the statement, but they had not attended, and he wished to have an adjournment in order that they might be subpoenaed. Ho complained that he had previously received some annoyance from the Inspector of Nuisances. In the first place, when his cases arrived, the Inspector had refused to allow the cases to be placed on the footpath, notwithstanding that there was a stagnant pool of water in the gutter,, and in the second case the Inspector had; spoken to him when cleaning the paper off the window, about permitting the paper to be blown a,bout. He (the defendant) had noticed that other drapers were permitted to expose goods, and it appeared that, being a stranger in the town, and ignorant of the by-laws, he had been singled out for persecution. After being spoken to the first time, the goods, which consisted of a "toilet cover,"' had been blown down, and the offending; article was Hot encroaching when the< Inspector called the second time. His Worship remarked that he coull&i not see that there had been any pevsetu--tion in the matter. The two witnesses; had given evidence that the gooda iin question were overhanging the footpailin, and with reference to the other matters he could take no cognisance of them because they were not before the Court. This was not a case in which he could grant a remand, and he would therefore, inflict the nominal penalty of Is,