RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 197, 18 March 1868, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON.

(Before Chas. Broad, Esq., E.M.) Monday, March 16. John Mitchell was fined 40s for being 'drunk and disorderly. Jane Smith had the same penalty imposed for being drunk and incapable. Michael Carey, for the same offence, was fined £l. John Moore was charged with committing a violent assault on Kearen Lawlor. He was defended by Mr. Home. Kearen Lawlor stated that on Sunday morning there was a dispute between his party and the next about the boundary pegs. They began it by abusiug him, and in the row which followed two men got hold of him, while John Moore struck him on the head twice with a large stone. Patrick Lawlor, a brother and mate of the last witness, saw the prisoner strike him on the head, find afterwards throw the stone in such a way tha*-- it struck the head of Edmund Shea. To prevent further bloodshed he went to the Camp and fetched the police. John H. Eilleul, a witness unconnected with either party, gave clear testimony in support of the story related by the two Lawlors. For the defence, Mr Home, after remarking that the positions of complainant and defendant ought in this case to have been reversed, called Harry Kennedy, who stated that he was present when the disturbance began, but went away when the struggle became serious. He did not see any blows struck by .any of Moore's party—they appeared desirous of avoiding a row. Archibald Moore stated that Lawlor first asked him about the pegs, and began swearing at him. The two Lawlors and mate then followed and

struck bitn as he was going away, and tried to jostle him into an open paddock about eight feet deep. Grcorge Moore, another mate, swore that ho saw Lawlor strike the first blow ; and seeing they were ill-treat-ing his mate, he called to the prisoner to join and run to his assistance. Mr Home asked that the case might be dismissed, seeing he had proved that complainant himself was the aggressor. The Magistrate said there was no doubt about a serious assault having been committed, and had there been no mitigating circumstances, he should have committed the prisoner to gaol, as it was, he should inflict a penalty of cfc/O. John Moore, Avas also charged with a violent assault upon Edmund Shea, and admitting the offence, was fined twenty shillings. Edward A. Drury was charged with assaulting the bailiff, John M'lvor, in the execution of his duty. Complainant stated that having received a warrant to arrest the. prisoner for debt, he saw him in town on Sunday, and kept him in view all day on purpose to ascertain his hiding place. In the evening he was following him down the Darkies' Terraceroad, and Drury started off at a run. He overtook him, and got a few paces ahead when Drury ran up against him and put out his arms as if to strike him. Thei'e was a crowd gathered round, and Constable M'Ardle arrested, him. Constable M'Ardle stated in consequence of being ordered to assist the bailiff, be followed the defendant on Sunday morning from house to house, and in the evening took part in the run along the Darkies' Terrace-road, and saw defendant run against the' bailiff as if intending to throw him down, and then raise his hands as if to strike him, upon which he arrested him. Both witnesses were cross-examined at some length by Mr Drury. The Magistrate, without calling for any defence, at once dismissed the charge. There was another complaint against the prisoner for creating a disturbance, but this was withdrawn. Constable Rhodes was charged on an information laid by Mary Ealey, for unlawfully entering her house, and making use of abusive language. Mr O'Neill, on behalf of the complainant, wished to amend the information, so as to include a charge of drunkenness, but this being refused, he asked leave for the information to be withdrawn. The Magistrate said, in any case he did not see how the information could stand, as the act uuder which it was laid required that the abusive language should be made use of in a public place, whereas only the private house of the complainant was mentioned. Mr Home objected to the information being withdrawn, and required that it be dismissed. His Worship said there was no legal offence shewn, and he should therefore dismiss the information.