RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 342, 27 October 1866, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.)

Friday, October, 26.

Larceny. — Edward M'Kenna, John Morrell, and Willian M'Cliskey were charged with larceny of a cheque of the value of L 5. John Way, the prosecutor being called, deposed that he "was at the down Hotel on Thursday evening last between the hours of 10 and 11 p.m. He was in theparlor, which is alittlewayoff the bar of the Hotel. He was in company with another person who was slightly intoxicated. He saw the prisoners there, and had asked them to drink. When he entered the hotel he had a cheque for L 5 in his pocket. He did not change same. He never paid it away. Upoja preparing to depart he felt for the cheque and found that it was gone. The prisoners and his friend were the only persons in the room. The cheque produced was the one he had lost. By prisoner M'Kenua — He was not sober, but knew perfectly well, what lie was about. S.rgeant M'Guire, being sworn, deposed that from information he received he went to the Crown Hotel where he saw the •prisoners. The prosecutor informed him that he had lost a cheque, and thought that the prisoners had- taken -it. He with the assistance of another constable searched the r prisoners, and found x the cheque produced on the person of prisoner. M'Kenna. Mr Broham asked for a remaud till to-morrow(tliis day), as he would then be able to establish the case against the three prisoners. They were accordingly remanded.

Perjury. — George H. Chamberlain was again placed in the dock, charged with wilful and corrupt perjury. Mr Broham asked for a remand for eight days, and his Worship granted the same.

Larceny. — John Aldridge and George H. Chamberlain were again brought up on remand, and Mr Bioham asked that the. prisoners might be remanded for eight days. Mr Button opposed the application, but his Worship determined to grant the remand, admitting the prisoners to their own bail.

Larceny. — J. H. Carr was again placed in the dock, and Mr Broham asked for a further remand till 3rd November, and the same was granted. Assault. — Lawrence Cohen charged Cashmore with having assaulted him but being unable to N substantiate the charge, his Worship dismissed same. Assajuxt. — William Maddonwas charged with having assaulted and beaten one James Dunn. The charge being proved, the defendant was fined Ll. The fine was immediately paid. Abusive Language. — Elizabeth Heine charged with this offence, and the same was being clearly 'proved, his Worship mulcted defendant in the sum of' 10s, at the same time recommiending her to be more cautious in future.

Assault.— William Nahr and Burke weie charged "for that they did on the 22nd day of October instant at Hokitika unlawfully assault and beat one James B. Clarke." Nahr acting under the advice of his counsel did not appear. -Burke was then proceeded against. From the evidence it appeared that the complainant had borrowed sonic chandeliers from Mr Bartlett, and lent same to Mr Veith, of the Cafe de France, on the understanding that they were to be returned in the course of a couple, of days. Complainant finding that Mr Veith had made himself " scarce," went to the Cafe de France, and commenced to remove the chandeiiers ; whereupon, 'Nahr and Burke ordered him to *' clear out," and upon his riot doing so, they took measures to .compel him. Mr Home -addressed the Bench for the defence, citing authorities to show that the defendant was fully justified in adopting the measures he had employed, as complainant had no F'ght to take the law into his own ;hands. The complaint was dismissed.

Feloniously Ste vling, &c. — George Hall was then charged " for that he did on or about the 18th October instant at Hokitika, feloniously steal, take, and carry away from the public road at the foot of the Cemetery Hill, six flagstones, of the goods and chattels of Samuel Stapleton and of the value of £10 10s." Mr Button for prisoner. Gteorge Stapleton, the prosecutor, being sworn, deposed that he was a bricklayer residing in Tancred street. He knew the accused. He remembered the TBth October instant. He was the owner of certain flagstones left at Cemetery Hill. He left them there a month ago for his own use. He could not say whether he had spoken, to prisoner about the sale of them or not. He was certain he had never given him permission to remove them as he wanted tbe stones for his own use. He missed the stones on the 18th October. The stones measured forty supeficial feet. He had seen Mr Hall's men removing the stones, but had offered no objection. He had demanded payment forjthe stones from Mr Hall, which had been refused. If he had been paid he would not have laid a criminal information. By Mr Button — He had accepted a sub-contract under Mr Hall for the performance of certain work connected with the completion of the Gaol. He had received a written notice from Mr Hall to the effect that if he (witness) did not complete the work within a certain time that it would be finished at his risk and cost. He had seen two of the workmen removing the flagstones. He would know them if he were to see them. (David Mullen and Fred. Wilson were then called and identified as the two workmen.) Witness did not recollect having given them directions as to the removal of the stones. He could not say whether he had recommeuded them to get a 1 horse or not. They were carrying the' stones on a hand-barrow. He would swear that he had. never given them any directions as to the removal of the stones. He believed that be had never spoken to Mr Eicketts upon the subject. He was not very friendly with Mr Hall. At this stage Mr Broham said that he would not proceed with the case. His Worship then intimated that he did not wish to hear the evidence for the defence, whereupon Mr "Button asked that hi 3 client might be permitted to make a statement. His Worship would have no objection to hear Mr Hall's statement. Mr Hall then gave tbe version 1 of the matter, from which it was conclusive that the flag- stones had been removerl with the complainant's sanction, and that the present information had been laid from malicious motives. His Worship would dismiss the charge, and in doing so he could not refrain from stating that the prosecutor had acted in a very base manner towurds Mr Halh He recollected the prosecutor having /jailed upon him and asked what course to adopt, when he had advised him to bring hiscomplaint before the Court in the form of a civil action. He believed that the information had been laid with the intent of causing Mr Hall annoyance. The Court was then adjourned till H a.m. this day. .

The following story is related by the " Ararat Advertiser" (Victoria) :—": — " A short time ago two miners left one of the goldfields, not a hundred miles from Ballarat, for Mel* bourne, whence they intended shipping for Ireland, and settling down on a small farm which has been in possession of their family for a very long period. These two arrived on the goldfields eight or ten yeara 'ago, and by constant iudustry, frugal habits, together with rather more good-luck than usually falls to the lot of .diggers now-a-days, they managed to amass a small independence, or sufficient to purchase the farm which their family has oc- > cupied for generations. This was the object for which they emigrated, and the untiring perseverance and energy which they evinced have met with their reward. They were known amongst their fellow-miners as ' Frank* and ' Jack,' but their surname was kept secret > and is now unknown to all but one friend, who accidently discovered them, aud to whom 1 their position and family affairs were known. The most singular part of the story is that ' Frank,' as one of the miners was called, was a woman, and the sister of the man whose mining operations she assisted. These two have always lived in the same tent, but situated apart from other dwellings, for obvious reasons. The lady digger, or diggeress, our informant states, had become so accustomed to man's apparel that she looked forward with regret to the time when she would be compelled to- doff her disguise for more fitting attire, and relinquish the comparative freedom of her life for the more re-

strieted habits imposed upon her sex. Her aversion to this change was the principal reason for the brother and sister remaining on the diggings so long, and it was not till . the strange couple found that shallow alluvial mining had ceased to be profitable that the lady could be prevailed upon to leave the colony and enter once more upon tho life ■ best suited to her. > The two miners are yet remembered by .many 1 as most quiet and un- ' obtrusive in their mode of life, and, although intimately known to none/they were Esteemed and respected by those with whom chance made them acqnainted. But that both have . sailed some months ago for Great Britain we would not have beer in possession of the secret which up to this period has been so well preserved. ' Frank ' changed parts in Melbourne, and took her passage home as the sister. When she first put on proper attire it required all the persuasion of which her brother was capable to get her to adhere to her resolution of remaining in the ranks of the fair sex, as more than ]once she expressed a desire to cast away hoops and skirts, and return to her old dress and occupation. Sho has taken her digger's clothes and a pick and shovel home with her, as mementoes of hey sojourn in the goldfieldi of Australia,"