RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Volume III, Issue 47, 24 February 1864, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, February 23rd, 1864. B (Before M. Price, Esq., E.M.) | Drink, and , its Results.— Five person 9 were fined in amounts from 55. 't0. 205., for fl being collectable by the pohce, from the streets, fl in various stages of intoxication j l the heavier B fines being imposed ' by the • Bench' according fl to the resistance offered to the gentle per- B suasions of. the constables in. mpving; them 9 along. Thomas Clarke for making use' of B language so" obscene as only fit to be handed ■ to the Bench in manuscript, was fined 405.; 9 and -John Davis, for an indecent exposition of fl himself, -was fined £5, or fourteen days im- fi prisonment, both men only offering the fi general excuse of drunkenness in-'palliation of Hj their offence. ( . •--;_ ■ „- , H - PbovOking Language. — Francis - Waden H (on remand) -was charged with" using ~ abusive B language to a constable. *lhe- defendant H brought forward two witnesses, -who, proved H that the language referred, to was merely B of a general character, in which, while Bj he was -walking along - the street, he IB alluded to the pohce as " b y bobbies, who BJ were too smart, by half." -On- hearing the H defendant making use. of" the language, R the constable arrested him. -The. magis- EH trate said that under_ the circumstances, B as the defendant had not,specially made use B of the language to the constable — which was *B| the actual charge— he would have to dismiss B the case. > H A G-eoundless GK£RG?-. : -S&oha 'Robertson B (on remand) was -charged.' with "' assaulting BS Thomas O'Toole, a bailiff of the^Court, in B the execution of his duty. The circumstances gM of. the case werelhat the complainant having to arrest the defendant at the, Mqkompko, .*^ c SS latter, accordhig to .complainant's; statement, BB resisted being taken'intoT custody and assaulted B him. The "case" "had been previously BK remanded in order to' allow -the defendant Hf to call evidence to — rebut the charge- ■£ A witness 'named Campbell,- "who saw the JH occurrence, stated- that when the bailiff v 9J| rested the defendant, 1 the latter did not refuse mg to go with him. He merely said to him, jS^ B if he would -allow, Mm to go up home for* SB minute or two he would go along with -^fj^p Thereupon the bailiff said if, when he P*! Br bailiff) put his hand on defendant's shoulder, H he (defendant) shoved it, or him off, Jj* B would know what to do. The bailiff accordingly placed his hand on defendant's shoulder, mm: anil the defendant, shoyed it away. That was «* all the assault he sa^_^hc^qmjDlain%^^ may being able "to put any- other complexion ol BK| the affair by cross examining v the witne-^f B| the Bench *said as the bailiff had' asked « c flp defendant to assault him; he must dismiss j?* H§ case. If the.bailiff d^not know iow to o& Hfc; charge his duty, he would havo: to-', discharg- 3 ■p** the defendant. Case disnussed.j_j, B Two"civil cases of .little importance tf erß B*| disposed of. _ j-v r> . .- ~ g