RESIDENT MAGESTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 280, 24 June 1868, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGESTRATE'S COURT.

Tuesday, Jxnra 23, 1868. (Before J. Giles Esqr., R. M.) DISTURBANCE IN THE ADELPHI THEATRE. "William Graham, was charged with creating a disturbance and breakingproperty in the Adelphi Hotel, on the preceding day. Samuel Hamilton, proprietor of the Adelphi, said that whilst the amateurs were rehearsing on the previous day the defendant was in the room and refused to leave, though requested to doso. Alter some time he became noisy and eventually broke a screen that was lying against the stage. Witness tried to put him out,° a scuffle ensued and eventually he was <nven into custodv. " ' By defendant—lt was a private rehearsal. There were others in besides you. There might be half-a-dozen, but there were not twenty or thirty. I dont know whether anv one sung out dont choke him. You told me you could lick me big as I was. I did not strike you, nor am I in the habit of striking people. By the bench -There were others there but on sufferance only. CI). Berry, proved that the defendant broke a scene that was wating to be fixed, when he called Mr Hamilton and the latter after attempting to put defendant out, called the police and gave the defendant into custody. By defendant—There were some fifteen people there. The scene was leaning on the stage when you broke In reply to the bench, witness said Mr Hamilton did not use any unnecessary violence to put out defendant. James Crane gave similar evidence as to the conduct of defendant. Constables Drury and Book testified that defendant was very drunk when brought to the lockup. Defendant said that others were skylarking and some one pushed him against the scene, Hamilton came up then and attempted to choke him. A scuffle ensued and he Avas eventually o-iven into custody. He had been four years on the Coast and had never been before a bench before. He called, Joseph Graham and Frank Griffiths whose evidence did not alter the features of the case. The magistrate did not consider the assault proved, but the destruction of propertv, drunkenness and disorderly conduct Averc. He would inflict a fine of 20s. for the latter and 10s. damages to bo paid to Mr Hamilton, and costs altogether £2 9s. CI VXD CASES. Manahan v. Walsh—Verdict by default for £ll, goods sold. Harvey v. Kerr. Dcwdney v. Robinson. Same v. Gisner—no appearance Wood v. Fitzgerald—To rccovor £9 10s, bread supplied. The defence Avas, that it had been supplied to a party, and that defendant had paid his share. The plaintiff Avas nonsuited. There Avcre a feAv other small debt cases, but none of the slightest interest.