RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 173, 19 February 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, Feb bit art 17. (Before Chas. Broad, Esq., R.M.) —■ Burrows, was charged with assaulting Detective Lambert, and obstructing him in the discharge of his duty. Detective Lambert said he was proceeding along the street in company with Detective Bowlej on Friday evening, when he was accosted by the prisoner, who barred. his passage and abused him with bad language. In consequence of the prisoner's interference he arrested him, when the latter became very violent and seized hold of his collar and assaulted him, aided by his wife, who picked up a large stone to strike him.

Cross-examined by Mr Homo —Was in the Alliance Hotel shortly before, when Mrs Burrows abused him for having had her husband summoned, and asked what he knew about him. tie then said he know her husband had been convicted at Hokitika for stealing £67, and also convicted in Australia. Did not call him names.

Detective Rowley confirmed tho statements of the last witness, and Sergeant Ryley gave evidence as to the violent conduct of Burrows when arrested by Lambert. Mr Home, for the defence, stated there had been great provocation in the manner in which Lambert had made public statements against the character of his client, and the point that the complainant had failed to show that he was engaged in any duty when stopped by defendant. His Worship said a detective was ahvays on duty, at the same time it was very improper for officers to discuss police business with persons concerned in public houses. Prisoner fined forty shillings. Rosanna Burrows was then charged with a similar offence against Detective Rowley, and notwithstanding a feeling aopeal addressed to the Bench by Mr Home, was fined twenty shillings. Stevens v. John Thomas. —The latter was charged with assaulting the plaintiff on the 11th February. In. the course of the complainant's statement, his Worship inquired if the assault arose out of any dispute as to the title of the house, and being answered in the affirmative, said he then had no power to adjudicate; complainant would have to bring a civil action, Charge dismissed. Durand v. Humphries. —This was another ease of assanlt, but there being no question of property involved, and the charge being sustained, defendant was fined twenty shillings. Police v. 3P Cart net/. —This was a case adjourned from 21st Jauuary, the defendant being charged with a breach of the Licensing Ordinance by selling liquors at 2 a.m. on the 19th January. Constable Rhodes gave evidence as to seeing a number of men drinking at the time stated, and that he found the house was iu possession of two women, who had been refused a license at Brighton. Defendant stated he was in the hospital at the time of the occurrence, and knew nothing about it. The Magistrate said that did not relieve him from his liability, and he would recommend him to have those women removed, otherwise his license might be cancelled. Fined forty shillings.