RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 209, 1 April 1868, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CHARLESTON.

(Before Chas. Broad, Esq., E.M.) Monday, March 30. Michael Hayes was charged with keeping a disorderly house at the Four Mile. Constable Bhodes gave evidence as to certain disorderly proceedings that took place on the 29th inst., but the Magistrate considered there was not enough to support the charge, and dismissed the information, with a caution to Mr. Hayes to be more careful. There was another information against the same person for neglecting to keep a light over his door. The. offence was admitted, and a reason given. i Ordered to pay the costs of court. McMefihen v. Harry MisJcell. This was a charge of assault, Mr Home appearing for the complainant. According to his evidence, it appeared he and the defendant, his mate, had some words on Friday night about money, and the latter knocked him down, by hitting him with a tomakawk handle on the side of his head. He was also assaulted by him on Sunday, defendant bruising his hand badly with a stone.

Defendant said that the complainant came home drunk, and provoked him so that he struck him, but only slightly, with the open hand, and called as a witness, Bobert Cullen, who corroborated his version.

In the course of the examination, however, the defendant put the question : " When I knocked him down, what did you see me take out of his pocket ?" thereby virtually admitting the assault. Fined £2 and costs.

Kennedy and Co. v. Johnston. The Magistrate read an application he had received from defendant's solicitor, at Oreymouth, and adjourned the hearing of the case to "Wednesday, Ist April. Fair and McCoy v. Wall. This was a claim of £5 19s 6d., on an 1.0. U. Defendant did not appear, but plaintiffs were nonsuited, in consequence of the document they were sueing upon being insufficiently stamped. Simpson v. Gill. Claim £lB, for balance of account. Defendant filed a setoff of £ls, for board and lodging, paid £1 into court, and pleaded not indebted as to the remainder.

The details were possessed of no general interest. Judgment for £2, in addition to the money paid into court. Daniel Moloney v. Michael Herbert. Claim £8 18s. Judgment for plaintiff by default. JEh'ederich Kenwick v. Katherine Taylor Claim £l6, as damages for breach of agreement. Plaintiff stated he had arranged with defendant for her to serve as a barmaid, at Brighton, for £4 per week, as per agreement produced, and that in consequence of her not fulfilling that agreement he had been obliged to shut up his house. Catherine Taylor said she was a married woman, and her name was Phelan. Mr Johnston on her behalf then claimed a nonsuit on the ground of coverture, and in confirmation of defendant's statement, produced a letter written to her by her husband. Mr Home, who appeared for the plaintiff, urged that some more substantial proof of marriage was required. Case adjourned, to allow of legal proof being obtained from Hokitika. Same v. Emma Thatcher —This was a case similar in all respects to the last, except that no such nonsuit point was raised.

For the defence, Emma Thatcher said—She did not know what her duties were to be, and she did not know what was contained in the agreement, which she signed without reading. Her reason for not going, was that she neard the house was not respectable. She called Catherine Taylor or Mrs Phelan, whose evidence however, as extracted by Mr Rome, was more amusing than of consequence to the case. Judgment for plaintiff for £5 and costs.

Smith Sf McDowell v. Rowley —Claim, £3 7s 6d. Judgment confessed. Allen v. Austin Adjourned to Wednesday.

Inglis Sf Hong v. Morgan —Claim, £3 for removing a store in Stafford Town, in 1866. Judgment for plaintiffs with costs.

THE FENIAN EXAMINATIONS. (feom the west coast times.) The usually quiet and humdrum proceedings of the Resident Magistrate's Court were invested on Saturday with a pomp and circumstance never before witnessed in Hokitika, and were marked besides with a stern carefulness on the part of the authorities that indicated no light apprehension of tumult and danger. The occasion was the preliminary examination of the Fenian

conspirators who had been arrested on the previous night, viz., Rev. Father Larkin, Mr Manning (Editor of Celt), Mr Clarke, M.C.C., and Messrs. Melody and Barrett. As it was known that a great many of their pajrtizans were in town, extraordinary precautions were taken to prevent resoue. Strong bodies of special constables guarded the distance from the Police Camp to the Court House with jealous care, the approaches to the latter building being flanked by double lines of men, under strict orders to preserve them intact at all hazards. Shortly before eleven o'clock, a guard of policemen under Inspector Broham, mustered in front of the lock-up, out of which presently issued the prisoners, looking more careworn and anxious than, judging them by their past acts, we expected they would. They marched with a subdued air between the constables, and appeared to find very few sympathisers amongst the crowd, as we noticed that not more than a dozen hats were raised to the priest Larkins as he passed along. They were safely lodged in the Court House, to which only special constables were admitted below the bar. The following is our report of the proceedings : Saturday, March 27.

(Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.) BOUT. William Joseph Larkln, John Manning, James Clarke, William Melody, and John Barrett, were placed in the dock charged with Rout. The prisoners Were undefended. Mr Harvey (who with Mr Button appeared for the Crown) said he did not intend to go fully into the case at that time, but would simply call such evidence as would warrant a remand. He should only call Detective Browne to prove the tumultuous assemblage, and then ask his Worship for a remand, as the prisoners had only been arrested the previous night and they had not had time to get up the case. Charles Townley Browne examined: I am a detective constable, stationed in Hokitika. I remember Sunday, Bth March instant. I was sent on that day to the Hokitika Cemetery, on duty. There was a procession came up on that day. I saw all the prisoners in that procession. The prisoners Melody and Clarke came up to the cemetery gate. The prisoner Melody took a hammer from his breast pocket and bent back a nail which was over the hook on which the gate hangs. The prisoner Melody then passed the hammer to the prisoner Clarke, who bent a similar nail on the opposite hook. They then lifted the gate off its hinges and placed it against the fence. The procession shortly after proceeded into the Cemetery, bearing banners of different devices. I noticed the inscriptions on the banners. On one was " God save Ireland," " 'Tis treason to love, and death to defend." I don't remember, just at present, any other, except the Irish wolf and harp. They all gathered at the further end of the Cemetery, and the prisoner Larkin addressed them and said, " We are here now, and what harm have we done ?" He said, also, they had been " maligned and blackballed by the Mayor of Hokitika." He said he would "make the Mayor to bow to the people." The processionists dug a hole, and erected a cross in the Cemetery. Prisoner Melody Fetched a longhandled shovel and dug the hole. I am not quite sure who put the cross in. I can't say what the inscription on the cross was. It was erected to the memory of the three men who were hung at home for the shooting of the serjeant of police. There were about 800 in the procession. By the prisoner Manning—The procession was not " rowdy," and did not evince any disposition to quarrel. I did not see any arms in the procession that were exposed. I could not say whether they had any arms. I did not see any. The general demeanour was very quiet. The people walked in an orderly manner,, like a funeral. There were children in the procession and women too. The prisoner proceeded to ask witness whether he thought those bent on riot would have women and children amongst them, when

Mr. Harvey objected that whatever the witness's opinion was, it was not evidence.

His Worship sustained the objection. Mr. Button said the prisoner had elicited the fact, and might argue from it, but a witness's opinion was not evidence. His "Worship asked the prisoner if he had any other question to put. The prisoner Manning said, that considering the question he had asked was relevant to the case, and had not been answered, he declined asking any more. By the prisoner Larkin—l heard that if the procession was stopped they

were determined to erect the cross and would not be Stopped. I heard it as a rumor. Mr. Harvey asked for a remand, which bis Worship granted. The prisoners were then remanded until Wednesday, the Ist April. The prisoner Manning asked if they would be admitted to bail. His Worship said that he Bhould refuse bail. He did so for two reasons. The first was, that if he eccepted bail he thought two of them would not appear; and the second was, that if he did so the public .peace would be endangered. S EDITION. A second information was laid against William Joseph Larkin and John Manning, of Hokitika, printers, that on the Ist, 15th, 22nd, and 29th days of November 1867, and on the 3rd, 10th, 24th, and 31st January, 21st, 28th, February, Gth, 13th, 20th, and 27* h March, 1868, at Hokitika, unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously, and seditiously, did write, print and publish certain false, wicked, malicious, scandalous, and seditious libels of, and concerning, our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, and her G-overnment, against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown, and dignity, and against the form of the statute in that case made and provided. The prisoners were undefended. Mr. Harvey, for the prosecution, applied for a remand in this case also.

The prisoner Manning, addressing his Worship, said that the crime with which they were charged was of so grave a nature that he could not he prepared with his defence by "Wednesday next, and as his Worship had acceded to the request of the prosecutor in the former case, he thought he was entitled to expect that his request for a longer remand would be complied with. His Worship had no objection at all to granting a longer remand in the present case.

Mr Harvey said that it was not 'the wish of the Government to throw any obstacle in the way of the prisoners preparing their defence. He thought, however, that their object would be better achieved by letting the remand stand as it was (until Wednesday) and then asking for a further remand on that day, as they would then know the specific libels with which they were charged. The prisoner Manning said he had no objection to such a line of procdure. He had no objection to be tried on this charge, but on the other His Worship said he could not allow any remarks on the case already disposed of. He had told them that the police would afford them every facility in obtaining counsel. The Prisoner Manning said he wished to draw his Worship's attention to the treatment they received at the lcck-up. They had no lights, no chairs, in fact, they were treated like felons—as if they were the lowest in society. Inspector Broham said that it was just the reverse of what the prisoner had stated. For last night he had given the police instructions himsell and they had separate bedding taken in to them.

The prisoner Manning said that he had nothing to say against the police, but the accommodation was such that he thought that they had not been prepared for them. His Worship remarked that he could not make a drawing-room of the lockup, but he would make enquiries into the statements, and would see that they were not subjected to any unusual restraint.

The prisoners were then remanded until Wednesdy next.