RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 67, 26 June 1863, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before M. Trice, JBsq., a. ai.) Tuesday, 23rd June. There was only one civil case before the Court to*day, and judgment was given for plaintiff. ■ Disturbers of the Peace. — Henry Smith and Thomas Watters were charged with disorderly conduct. The pair, it seems, had been fighting, but as Wattera was the originator he was fined £2, or 7 days imprisonment, and Smith was discharged. A HEARTLESS CASE. John Robertson, who styled himself a butcher, was charged with the desertion of his wife and child. Mr South appeared -on behalf of the prosecutrix Mrs Robertson, and Mr. Harvey for the prisoner. The defence was that prosecutrix was not the prisoner's wife, and after some discussion this was accepted as a plea cf not guilty. Mr. South opened the case for pro3ecutrix, in an address of considerable length. He pointed out the cruelty of the defence set up, and said he was in a position to prove that the parties were legally married by Dr. Cairns, Melbourne, and that the child which prosecutrix carried was the issue of that union. About the 24th September, 1861, prisoner deserted his wife and child, and had not provided for them since. With the aid of the police, prosecutrix traced the prisoner to this place, and found that he was cohabiting' with a woman named Smith, who had a child to him. The marriage certificate prisoner had obtained from prosecutrix by false pretences, at an interview they had in the Royal Hotel, and he would not give it up. After some further explanations, Mr. South called on Martha Robertson, who deposed that the prisoner was her husband, and the child she carried the issue of their marriage. The child was named John Robertson. Dr. Cairns, of Melbourne, married her and the prisoner, and gave a certificate, which he got possession of about a week ago in the Royal Hotel. Prisoner deserted witness about two years ago. Got a clue to him through the police, and arrived here a week ago. Saw the prisoner at the door of the Royal Hotel, and claimed him as her husband. He never denied the fact till the previous night, when he was apprehended. Mrs Campbell deposed to having been a fellow passenger with prosecutrix on board the Aldinga. After landing here, they saw prisoner when she said " There is my husband," and went up to him. They afterwards went together into the Royal Hotel where prisoner supplied them with some ale, bread and cheese. He never denied that prosecutrix was his wife. (Witness examined at great length, but her statements were very confused. The above is the substance of her evidence.) Mrs Martha Maning knew prosecutrix from living in the same apartments with her at the Royal Hotel since the 16th. Was present at interviews with the prisoner and her. On one of these occasions he offered her money, and asked her to wait till he got his affairs settled when they would return to Victoria. Witness afterwards had an interview with prisoner herself, and asked him if the report that he had a wife here was true. He would not own to it, but admitted there was a child. Prosecutrix frequently called him " husband" and he never denied being so. By Mr Harvey : Never heard the question of husband oi wife discussed between them. He never disowned her as his wife. Spoke to prisoner about the child, and he said it was provided for. Had no doubt prosecutrix was his wife and did not put the question to him. He never denied being married to her. By Mr South : When witness spoke to him he never mentioned his wife. Prosecutrix. said "it was cruel of him to leave his wife in the way he did," and upon that he asked what money she would require ; he would give her any amount. Morris Sallak, landlord of the Royal Hotel, deposed : 1 knew the prosecutirx in Melbourne. I have known her for the last two years as Mrs Robertson. I know prisoner | simply from him coming into the hotel and j having a glass of ale. Either last Tuesday or Wednesday prosecutrix and prisoner came into the hotel with some friends, and the mo- j ment she saw me, she grasped prisoner and said, "Mr Sallak, there is my husband; I have not seen him for the last two years." She was excited. Prisoner held down his head a bit and made no reply. This took place in the bar parlor of the hotel. Afterwards prisoner asked for a room, and I showed them up-stairs to a double-bedded room. He came down and ordered some bread and cheese and ale. They remained up-stairs about half-.'iu-hour or so, when he returned, and said to me, "Can you get my wife some tea? 1 ' I directed the tea to be got ready, and they had it in the best room. The tea is not paid for yet. ( Laughter.) After finishing the tea, a friend of prosecutrix who wanted to stay till Saturday, nsked what was the charge. I told her, and she thought it too high, when prisoner said, " never mind, I will pay for all." She did not then make up her mind to stay, and the whole party went away. After a while prisoner came back, and took away their bundle. Then he came again, and said to me " Don't mention it to any one that Mrs Robertson has been here. You keep quiet, — it will do you no harm." By the Bench : When he said, " Can you get my wife some tea," I understood it was for the prosecutrix. There was no other in the house to whom it could apply. Mr. Harvey said that after the evidence it was impossible to oppose any course the Court chose to follow. The prisoner admitted being father of the child, but denied that he and prosecutrix were married, and they had written to Melbourne for proof that they merely co-habited. His worship was clearly of opinion, from the evidence brought before him, that the prisoner had deserted his wife for the last two years. The evidence of the last witness settled the matter. He would have considered it extraordinary if the woman had not been 9xcited in such circumstances. Had she not been married to the prisoner he could understand how she might go quietly up to him and claim him as her husband. After going over the evidence, he read the clauses of the Act under which the information was laid, and said he would inflict the full penalty. He only wished he had the power to make it ten times as much. Even supposing prosecutrix was not the wife of prisoner, it was a most heartless thing in him to leave her destitute when he had the means of supplying the wants of her and the child. The judgment was that he be fined £!>, pay for maintenance the sum of 20s. weekly, and remain in sustody till satisfactory security be given to the Court for the regular payment of the maintenance. The costs of Court and counsel for prosecutrix to be paid by the prisoner. Mr. South applied for retrospective maintenance money since the time of desertion His worship said that if he had the power lie would do so, and send the prisoner to gaol till he paid it. It was a case where no mercy should be shown, but he had not tho power to ?ive retrospective money. If he had any ioubt on the subject, he would give it against the prisoner, but he had no doubt. Mr South said if he could find a precedent, lie would bring the subject before his Worship again. CIVIL CASE. Campbell v. Bransgrove.— Claim £20, for injuries done to a horse hired by defendant of plaintiff. After a lengthened trial plaintiff was nonauitod. . .THTJR6DA.T, 2STH Jr>Ts. i Inebriates. — Patrick Buike, for -being; drunk ana disorderly in Tay-sireet, was lined.

ss. Alex. Grant and Edward Smith weie each ac •us . dof the same ofience. Prisoners pleaded not guilty. A constable deposed to finding them in Kelvin-street, at half-past twelve, and they were so drunk that they fell several times. Smith, pointing to his dress, asked how that could be, sirfce there was no mud upon it, and he complained of ill-usage when taken to the lock-up. The constable in charge of the lock-up -was sent for, and he affirmed that both prisoners Were drunk when they were brought in. A fine of 59. was imposed on each. A GodD Hokse.— Henry King was charged with driving atafuiious rate along Dee-street on the 19th inst. Defendant said he did all he could to restrain the animal. A constable deposed to him riding the horse at a gallop, and defend ant made no effort to pull it up till witness called on him. His Worship : Did he gallop through the mud of Dee-street Witness : Yes. His Worship : Then it must be a good horse indeed. However we canno? permit furious riding, and (t-> defendant) you are fined 10s and costs. VREAKING THE UOOTPATHS. Thoma? Delacour was charged with bteak-ing-up the footpath in Tav -street, at the Lowther Arcade. Mn South appeared for the defendant. A constable stated that at 0 a.m., he found defendant had dug a trench right across the footway. Asked him by what authority he did so, and was told that Messrs Mueller and Geisow authorised defendant. Mr South wished Mr Pilliet (representative of the above firm) to be put into the witness box. The defendant was only a servant acting under Mr Pilliet's orders. After some discussion, Mr Pilliet's evidence was taken. In effect it was that though having no written authority from the Town Board, the firm were entitled to make the cutting by minutes of the Board. His Wonship held that this was not evidence. Mr South: Well, we must eummon the whole Town Board. It was agreed by counsel and the Bench that the Clerk of the Town Board be Eummoned to produce the minute book of the Board. A subpoena was at once issued, and in a short time Mr Hunter arrived in Court. From several minutes which he read, it was evident that Messrs Mueller and Giesow hud authority to erect a verandah in front of the Arcade, and to do this witness considered that excavations would be necessary. His Worship thought there was no use in going into further evidence. Mr South would throw out a hint. Wou'd it not be better for the police to put themselves in communication with the Town Board before bringing such actions ? Sergeant Chapman wished to ask witness a question. Was it necessary for the purpose required to dig a trench" four feet wide and from two to three feet deep across the pavement ? Witness could not say ; that was a question for the engineer His Worship thought that in such cases the police should apply to the Town Board first. Sorgeant Chapman : And while hunting up the Clerk of the Board the excavation is going on. His Worship : Let me see. It is about 200 yards from this place (the Arcade) to the Town Board Office, and surely a policeman could accomplish that distance in five minutes. Case dismissed. civil cask. ! Newton and Moffat v Wilson and Co. — Claim for £16 16s. "Mr Macdonald for plaintiffs, and Mr South for the defendants. From the evidence it appeared that a quantity of flooring had been landed at the Puni Creek from the Fair Tasmanian for both parties. Plaintiff's put theirs in charge of a party who was almost constantly on the spot, yet notwithstanding being informed who it belonged to, the timber was carted off by defendants' order. Judgment for plaintiffs. V