CHARLESTON NEWS.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 189, 9 March 1868, Page 2

CHARLESTON NEWS.

EESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON. Friday, March 6.

(Before Chas. Broad, Esq., E.M.) George Armstrong and Wm. JSJnox, not appearing to answer the charge of bein» drunk and disorderly, had their bail forfeited.

John Lidley, for a criminal offence, was fined £l.

Henry Harper was charged, under the 9th section of the Licensing Act, with being absent from his house.

Mr O'Neill, for the defence, urged that the Act states an absence of seven days, whereas actual proof of absence for two days only had been adduced. Sergeant Kyley gave an unfavorable character of the house. Fined £5 and costs, and license recommended to be cancelled. Nourish v. Johnson. —Mr O'Neill for complainant, Mr Home for defendant. This was a case of assault; the complainant stating that having occasion to remonstrate with the defendant, a mate of his, the latter said he would cut him down, and was about to rush at him with a tomahawk when he was stopped by another mate. This was corroborated by the mate just referred to, and even the witness called for the defence only confirmed the statement in point of fact. Fined £5 and costs.

Police v. Duke Dallam. —The defendant was charged with unlawfully doing certain worldly work on the Sabbath day. He was defended by Mr O'Neill. Sergeant Kyley stated that in consequence of instructions received to strictly enforce the observance of Sunday according to the Ordinance, he had cautioned the inhabitants per advertisement inserted in the local papers. Constable O'Mara gave evidence as to seeing Ballam carting coals on Sunday forenoon.

Cross-examined. Tho defendant stated the coals were to ballast a vessel in the Bay. Chas. Grascoigne said he had engaged defendant to ballast the schooner Fancy, and it was in pursuance of that engagement the latter carted the coals. Cross-examined by Mr O'Neill.—The ballast was put on board that day (Sunday), and she was to have left the same day. Mr O'Neill said in this, the first case of the kind which had arisen here, he had to bring forward the strong plea of necessity, which was held to be a good one by the Act itself. He called Capt. Beveridge, harbor-master, who stated it was necessary for vessels frequenting Constant Bay to be discharged and despatched as rapidly as possible. He knew tho Fancy was intended to sail on Sunday, but the tide prevented her. It would not have been safo for her to have gone to sea without ballast. By the Bench.—lt was a matter of necessity that she should have ballast before she went out. Mr G-ascoigne, called also for the defence, said it was not safe to ballast a vessel with sand, and tho only other material was coal.

His Worship said it was clear the information must fail, it having been shewn that the labor complained of was a work of necessity. Information dismissed. POLICE U. EUGENE ALLMAN. This was a similar case to that of Henry Harper reported above, and the offence being admitted, defendant was fined £lO, and his license was recommended to be cancelled. ANN HADDON V. MKS TELL. Mr Home appeared for plaintiff who accused defendant of using abusive and insulting language to her on the 29th February. On being asked what sbe had to say to the charge, the defendant replied she was French, and did not speak English, and asked for an interpreter. Mr Brou stepped forward to officiate as such. Ann Haddon stated the circumstance of the defendant coming up to her and calling her bad names for using her clothes line, saying she would warm her shoulders with a whip. This was corroborated by a witness named Begg, who in reply to a question from the Magistrate, said, the accused swore at and abused the complainant in English. The Magistrate said, with such a vocabulary at command, the defendant evidently did not require an interpreter; —(to her) "Have you any questions to ask the witness 1" Defendant English, I wish interpreter, si vous plaisAnother witness, named Elizabeth Arthur, gave similar testimony to previous witness, and on being asked if she wished to say anything in her defence, the defendant replied—" Je ne comprenais monsieur —me no speak English." Fined 40s and costs. FAIR AND M'COY V. CLAKKSON. Claim, 12s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff by default.