RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1874, 5 January 1875, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY.

(Before W. Dairies, Mayor, and J. Warmoll, Esqs, J;P.'s) BEEACH OF BYE-LAW. -

Joshua Lenton, charged with a breach of Bye-law No. 3, Sec. 16, Borough of Thames, by furiously riding in a public street, to wit Pollen street, Shortland; on the 28th December last, did not appear.

Mr Bullen said the summons had been served on defendant personally. He produced affidavit of service. Allowed to stand over for a time. :■-.,; ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. Richard Schofield was. charged that he did unlawfully use provoking and insulting language towards one John Graham, on the 24th December.

'■__. This case was adjourned from the 29th instant. -

;Mr Miller for complainant; Mr Tyler, for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. John Graham, sworn, deposed—That he was complainant, and knew defendant Schofield. On' the 24th December last saw defendant in a butcher's shop (Brown's) in Albert-street, about ten o'clock in the morning. As witness was going past Schofield said, "Are you going to see Brennaa this morning, you -d— informer ?" Defendant was looking towards witness. He then said, " Have, you got any more specimens ?.". and told witness to look out for the bulldogs, or Bomethirig to that effect. Witness said nothing, never opened Jbis mouth to defendant. : He had used abusive language towards witness on previous occasions. Mr Tyler objected. They were there to hear the charge contained in the information, without reference to any other circumstance.

Mr Miller contended that he was entitled to give evidence of previous cases of abusive language, in order to show that it was likely to be repeated, as it was sought to bind defendant over to keep the peace. Mr Tyler said it had been ruled in that Court that such evidence should not be received. Defendant was only prepared to answer the charge in the information.

The Bench ruled that the evidence should be confined to the charge in the information.

Examination resumed—Witness never answered defendant a word. He believed the conduct was likely to ba repeated unless defendant were bound over This conduct of defendant's would provoke a breach of the peace unless restrainedhe couldn't stand it any longer. Witness didn't know the object of defendant's language unless to create a row in the street. He asked that defendant be bound over.

By Mr Tyler—There is no ill feeling on my part towards Schofield. I was a mate of his, but ceased to be so on New Year's Day. Ido not know that a search warrant was issued against defendant. I continued walking on when defendant spoke to me from the butcher's shop. The butcher could hear what was said if he were not deaf. I laid the information about two hours after the occurrence. (Complainant was examined as to the precise words used by defendant.) I swear that the language was used towards me. I swear that defendant used those words to me, " Are you going to Brennan this morning, you informer P ''

Wm. Brown, called as a witness, said this was the second time he had been here, and had to leave his shop to a stranger. He wanted to know who was to pay him.

"Wm. Brown, sworn, deposed—That he was a butcher in Albert-street. Was in his shop on the 24th December. Thought Schofield was there about 10 o'clock. Did not see complainant, John Graham, pass the shop about 10 o'clock. Cross-examined by Mr Tyler-^-Scbo-

field was talking to me just at the door. He asked me if I had seen detective Brennan walking about that morning. I said, " No, Richard." I thought it was me he was talking to. I never heard the words, "Have you seen Detective Brennan this morning, you —; informer ? " It was not said in the course of conversation.

Re-examined by Mr Miller—l think Schofield was in my shop for half-an-hour. I do not remember all that Schofield said.* •" ■ . ■ .'-■•■-■■ " ■■■. '■"■:; v.-:

This was complainant's case. Mr Tyler would ask the Bench if they thought there was anything to answer; Tho Bench thought not, and dismissed the case*

Mr Brown again urged his claim for costs, and the Court: allowed the usual costs in the case, which amounted to £1 11s. . , . I FURIOUS RJDING.; . . A I The case of Joshua Lenton was again called on, but defendant did not appear. .. \ Mr Bullen said the man had been about this morning, and he thought the Bench should issue a, warrant for his apprehension for contempt of Court. Warrant ordered to issue. The Court adjourned. ; ,