RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 283, 27 June 1868, Page 7

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Monday, June 22, (Beforo .T. Giles, Esq., R.M.) DRUNK. John "Wragge, forfeited liis bail of £2, for drunkenness. Eliza Fry, waa charged with being drunk, and disorderly, and also with being an habitual drunkard. In defence, she said she only drank when her husband gave it her, and then when she had taken it he murdered her. Constable Neville, proved that the prisoner was given in charge by her husband, when she attacked hitn and a scuffle took place, when witness took her to the lockup. Constable Rooke, proved four previous convictions against the prisoner within seven months.

The Magistrate, sentenced the prisoner to seven days imprisonment for habitual drunkenness, and £1 or 24 hours for the present offence. STEALINa A BOTTLE OP BRANDY James Peacock, was charged with having at Addisons Plat, on the 20th inst. stolen a bottle of brandy, value 65., the property of John Duce. Sarah Duce, wife of prosecutor said —I reside at Addisons, and know the prisoner who lives next door to me. On the afternoon of the 20th, I was in my bedroom about half past two or three o'clock, when I heard soma one come in at the back door I got up and looked through a hole in the calico to sec who it was, I saw it was the prisoner, Dr Peacock, with a bottle of brandy in his hand, and he put it into his pocket. He took itj from uuder Jhe counter behind the bar. I know he did, "because I saw him behind the bar, and saw his shadow through the calico. He then went out at the back-door and I followed him and asked him to give me the bottle of brandy back, and I would not say any thing about it if he did. He said he would not, and I told my husband when he came home from his work about 5 o'clock. There was a bottle of brandy missing; I know it was missing, because there was only one full bottle there and that was gone when I looked. I can identify the bottle for it was scratched in a particular manner. The bottle produced is the same. Ours is a private house. When he took the bottle I followed him in to his own place, and saw the bottle in his possession, in his blankets, He took a drink whilst I was there in the place. By the prisoner—l went to your place on Saturday. There was no female went to your house with me when I first asked you to give it me. You did not say that you had no brandy belonging to me ; you told me you would not pay me for it, and at the same tsme pulled out three half crowns and showed them to me. You did not say that if the brandy -was mine you would pay me for it. We went a second time, Mrs Dillon and I, and you asked us a drink ; I did not take it, I poured it out and threw it away. lam not aware that Mrs Dillon brought you any brandy. I swear to the bottle through the label being scratched. I may have seen other bottles scratched.

By the bench—The bottle was got m on Eriday. It was bought of Mr Huxly, my husband went for it. John Duce, husband of the previous witness, proved that after his wife had told him that Dr Peacock had taken a bottle of brandy he went to him himself and asked for it. The doctor asked him to have a drink, which he refused, and demanded the bottle when he said witness wanted a good hiding. Witness then gave information to the police, and the prisoner was arrested. By the bench —The bottle produced has the same brand on, but I cannet identify it. By the prisoner—You did not say that you had no brandy belonging to me, you took out half a crown and showed it me, and I said I wanted no money, I only wanted the brandy. We do not seii grog ; the house is closed, there are notmany people in and out. My wife to my knowledge does not sell grog. Constable Groodall, proved that on the information of the prosecutor he had arrested prisoner on the charge of stealing a bottle of brandy. Witness told him the charge and searched the house, and found the bottle produced in the ashes of the fireplace. At the time he was arrested prisoner was under the influence of drink, and on being charged all he said, was,« well we will see about it." Mrs Duce, recalled by the bench, said, that the prisoner was very drunk when she followed him into his house to get the brandy back again he used to come into their house, but. He had not been in for some time. He used to come in in ajfriendly way when they had a license, but he had not done

so since the license ran out. If he did it was not more than once, and he did not have anything to drink. In defence, prisoner denied that he had taken the brandy at all. He showed brandy to the prosecutrix to show he had brandy, that Mrs Dillon had brought in, half-a-crown's worth. He had been fourteen years in the colony, and had never been accused of an offence of any description. Constable Neville who had been stationed at Addison's Plat, knew him for some time. The Magistrate said that he had no doubt whatever as to the brandy being taken, for otherwise Mrs Dale . must have committed wilful and corrupt perjury, and he had no reason whatever to think that such was the case. The only question for consideration was the circumstances. He was very sorry to find a person professing to have any connection with a learned profession in such a position as this, but that instead of palliating aggravated the matter. There was no reason to believe that the prisoner would have deliberately committed such a theft whilst in his sober senses, and in this case there were some circumstances that might be taken in mitigation. The larceny however had been clearly committed and the sentence of the court was, that the prisoner be sent to gaol for fourteen days with hard labour. CIVIL CASES. Powell and Co. v. Decy.—-Adjourned till Priday. Alcorn and Co. v. S. Hamilton.—To recover £6 4s. goods supplied. Defendant admitted a portion of the account, but applied for an adjournment. This was refused, and a verdict given for the amount claimed.

Tuesday, June 23, 1868. (Before J. Giles Esqr., R. M.) DISTURBANCE IN THE ADELPHI THEATRE. William Graham, was charged with creating a disturbance and breaking property 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 do so. After 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 given into custody. 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 any one sung out domt 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. C. D. 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 it. 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 Rook 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 was eventually given 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 however alter the features of the case. The magistrate did not consider the assault proved, but the destruction of property, drunkenness and disorderly conduct were. He would inflict a fine of 20s. for the latter and 10s. damages to be paid to Mr Hamilton, and costs altogether £2 9s. CIVIL CASES. Manahan v. Walsh—Verdict by default for £ll, goods sold. Harvey v. Kerr. Dewdney v. Robinson. Same v. GHsner—no appearance Wood v. Fitzgerald—To recovor £9 10s, bread supplied. The defence was, that it had been supplied to a party, and that defendant had paid his share. The plaintiff was nonsuited.

Wednesday, June 24, 1868. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R. M. liABCENY. Murdoch M'Donald, was charged with having feloniously stolen from

Roger Thomas, a deposit receipt for £4O, a miners right, ft gold pin and eleven ounces of fine gold, at the Lyell. Detective Lambert conducted the prosecution. The prosecutor deposed—l am a miner residing at the Lyell, and know the prisoner who was a mate of mine. He lived in the same hut with me. On Monday week the 15th instant, we had gold in the hut. There were eleven ounces of gold in a chamois bag which was inside another; there was also, a deposit receipt for £4O on the Union Bank, a gold pin, and one old miners right in a pocket-book, the chamois bag with the gold also, beinoin the pocket-book. The depositre" ceipt was in my name. I saw the gold pin tho evening before I glost it, on Sunday week. These articles were stolen from me I suppose, as I did not give them to any one. I sent information through the bank to Lhe police. I can positively swear to the nugget that was on the head of the pin. °The nugget produced is the same, but it has been broken off the head of the pin. I have no doubt whatever about it. The pin was in a thick chamois bag ma.de to fit it, and Was placed separately in the pocket-book. The bag was only made four or five days before I lost the pin. I and the prisoner came down together from the Lyell, last Friday, the 19th instant, we were at Trimble's Nelson Hotel that night, ■ and the prisoner was drunk, and I got him up to bed, taking his money watch, &c. from him ; amongst other, things I found the nugget produced that I had previously lost.

By the Bench —I first missed the things last Monday morning week. They were kept in my bunk, the pocketbook under my head. I saw the pocket book about 7 o'clock that morning. I left the hut about half-past 7 and went back about half an hour afterwards. I saw the trunks had been disturbed, the bedding having been shaken up, and thought it singular. I did not make any search then and went out to work. I came in at dinner time and then missed the pocketbook and contents gone. The prisoner had slept in the hut the night preceeding, but he was not there when I found the bedding shaken up. He was there at dinner time. When I found the pin on the prisoner he told me a man named John Hannibury gave it him, five weeks before ; this he said without my asking him any questions, and he added that he was the only friend he had. After finding the nugget I left the room, and prisoner made the statement as to Hannibury, afterwards, he spoke about it before I said anything to him about the nugget. % the Prisoner—You said to me, Johnny Hannibury had given you the gold. I know the man by sight and have known him six or seven weeks. I took £8 10s from you, or rather I did not take it from you, you gave it to me.

Charles M'Alister said —I am a mate of the last witness, prisoner was a mate also, and five of us lived in the same hut. The prisoner was a dividing mate of mine, as well as being mate with the others. lie was not a dividing mate with the others excepting, as far as the claim we were then in. I remember the last witness having gold in his possession, about lloa, or thereabouts ; he had also, a pin which I saw in his possession four or five days before he lost it, as also, the chamois bag he made for it. The nugget produced I cannot swear to, but it is about the same size. The morning when prosecutor missed the things prisoner was cooking in the tent and was left at home. By the Prisoner—That was not the only morning you had been left alone in the hut. I cannot say whether any one else was in the hut, that morning when I left it, there were others back to the hut of our party, but no others that I know of; there was other gold in the hut, I cannot say how much exactly, but there was over 20oz. I remember you going up the river four or five weeks ago to see a person John Hannibury, who stopped in our hut a night or two a fortnight before you went. I have known you three years, and during that time you have been working at the diggings. Thero was always gold in the tent previous to this-Re-examined—The 20oz of gold in the hut that morning belonged to William Hopkins. Prisoner was uot out of the hut on the various times we went back to the hut. William Hopkins, another mate of prisoner gave similar evdence. The had seen prisoner show a pin to his mate but not similar to the one belonging to the prosecutor. In reply to prisoner the witness said he had been working with him on the West Coast since last April twelvemonths, and had never known anything against him. There was a

wages man stopping in the hut when the gold was lost. Ewen Kenedy who had been stopping in prosecutors hut for seven or eight weeks, remembered the gold being missed and gave other evidence aimilir to the preceding but could not identify the nugget or the pin. J. A. M. Turner, Watchmaker and jeweller, proved that the nugget produced had been through the fire, nad had sodler attached to it and seemed to have been a portion of a acarf pin. Thomas Miller had seen the prisoner on Friday night last, at the Nelson hotel, and Thomas was there also. Pri-! soner was taken to bed by Thomas, and witnee saw the nugget produced; taken from his (prisoners) pocket.' Prosecutor seemed astonished at finding the nugget but did not say anything to myself at the time. J. P. Martin, agent for the Union Bank of Australia, knew the prosecutor, and a; receipt had stood in the bank to his name for £4O, for some months. Witness received a letter from him stating it had been stolen from him together with some gold. Witness then reported the matter to the police. The day after the letter was received Thomas and the prisoner went into the bank together, and some conversation took place as to cashing a receipt that had been lost. Prisoner took the chief part in the conversation,' and wanted to know if the signature of the person to whom the deposit was forged could it be cashed. Witness said it could, unless notice had been previously given that the receipt had been lost, in which case it would be paid to the defendant alone. There is no name on the receipt, but a number only, so a stranger finding it would not have the slightest clue to the ■lame of the owner.

By the prisoner—You did ask if I; would pay the money to Thomas if any one having the same account in the bank would go security for Thomas. I said no, unless the person was a pesident, and well known to the Bank.: Detective Lambert proved the arrest of the prisoner, who told him he had the nugget five or six weeks in his possession, and that he got in from a man named John Hannibury. Prosecutor prior to arrest identified the nugget in prisoner's presence. After the prisoner had been cautioned in the usual manner ail he said was that he had slept in the hut for a long time. Hannibury stopped two nights in the hut six or seven weeks ago, and had after that sent down word to him (prisoner) that he had struck payable gold and he went up in consequence. He saw a sample of gold, o that Hannibury had several nuggets, from four to ten dwts. each, and he gave him one, the one produced. Alexander Campbell, called by the prisoner, proved nothing more than that he had known him for years digging. The prisoner was then fully committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the District Court, at Westport. Bail to be allowed, prisoner in £SO, and two sureties of £25 each. CRIMINAL ASSAULT. Patrick O'Toole was brought up charged with criminally, assaulting a woman at Addison's Plat, but the case was not gone into, the prisoner at his own request being remanded till Monday next. He applied for bail which was refused at first. Subsequently the Magistrate admitted prisoner to bail, himself in £3OO and two sureties of £2OO each. STEALING A BOTTLE OP BBANDY. Margaret Ashton was charged with stealing a bottle of brandy at Addi-; son's .Plat, the property of Ellen Kennedy. The prosecutrix, a single woman, residing at Addison's Flat, said that the prisoner came to her house, and after she left a bottle of brandy was missing. She followed prisoner to her house and found the bottle on her table. On being asked to return it she said she got it from Dr. Denovan, and refused to give it back, when prosecutrix gave her into custody. Margaret Reid, who lived with prisoner, proved that the latter brought a bottle of brandy home, that the prosecutrix subsequently claimed. William Denovan, medical practitioner, was called to prove that he had not given her a bottle of brandy as stated. In reply to prisoner, the witness denied that he had ever given her any brandy. He did not give her half a bottle from the wake of the man that was killed. The prisoner was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment, with hard labor.