RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 295, 11 July 1868, Page 4

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, Jult 10. (Before J. Giles Esqr., E.M.) YAGBANCT. Thomas Scott was charged with being an idle and disorderly person, and with having no lawful visible means of support. Evidence was given of repeated convictions against the prisoner, and also of his general bad character, which abundantly proved the charge. Prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labor.

lABCEITY. Thomas Harper was charged with having on the Bth inst., stolen a keg, the property of Eugene O'Conor; and a second information charged him with obtaining two gallons of beer, the property of Lendrum and Co., on false pretences.

The evidence was exactly similar in substance to what we stated in yesterday's issue, and the prisoner was sentenced to three months' imprison-

ment with hard labor on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent. ILLEGALLY SELLING BPIBITtrOOB LIQUORS.

Ellen Kennedy was informed against for having, ou tue sth inst, illegally sold four glasses of liquor at Addison's Flat. Senior Constable G-oodall said that on the evening of Sunday, the sth, about half-past 10 o'clock, he met the defendant near her own house at Addison's. Two other constables were with him. They had some conversation with her, and she invited them in to her house to have a drink,and they went in. The front room is fitted up as the bar of I a public house on a small scale, with shelving &c. Witness had brandy, and the other constables! r indy and sherry, defendant producing a bottle from under the counter from which she served them. Whilst they were there, a man came out of the back room and said that it was his turn to shout, and they had drinks again. The man who asked them to drink, threwdownafiveshilliug piece and asked for his change, saying he was not going to shout for her. "She said that he would at all events shout for some one inside, and he did so. After this the man threw the five shilling piece int»» defendant's lap and said that made them square, and she said it did. The house was occupied by defendant, and it was not licensed. She was the reputed proprietress. In reply to defendant witness denied that he had asked her to cook him any ham and eggs, nor to give him any oysters. All he said was, that he would have some ham and eggs with her. There were a lot of empty tins on the shelves in the place. After holding the five shilling piece some time, she put it on the counter ;*gain. By the Bench—He did not know what became of the money, he believed it was lying on the counter when he came out. There were bottles on the shelves but he could not say whether they contained liquor, though he believed they did. When defendant put the money back on the counter she did not say anything, the man said that made it square and she said yes. > Constable Maguire corroborated the evidence of the previous witness as to the sale. The day after the sale he went to defendant's, and told her she would be summoned if she did not take out a license, when she produced the five shilling piece from one of the shelves, and said that she did not take the money for that there it was. In reply to defendant, witness said that when she served them with drinks she said that she did not sell grog, but merely kept it for her own use. He remembered her sitting on his knee eight months ago, but he did not say that if she would go into the bedroom with him he would make it all right. Defendant was proceeding with this line of examination but the Magistrate ruled it to be irrevalent. To the Bench The man that shouted lived, witness believed, on Addison's, but did not live in defendant's house.

Constable O'Mara was called to corroborate the two previous witnesses.

Charles Saunders was called for the defence. He said he was a miner, and on the Sunday night was at defendant's house. The police came in and he offered to shout and threw down a five shilling piece. At the time he was the worse for drink. She said that she would not take the money and put it back on the counter, and afterwards on the shelf. The next day the money was lying in the same place where she put it the evening previously, and she insisted on witness taking it which he did and had it still.

By Mr Franklyn—He had been there five or ten minutes before the police came in. He never slept in her house. He had never paid for drinks in her house in his life but that time. He earned his living by hard work, and there were many who knew it both at Addison's and here.

By the Bench—He did not recollect her asking him to Bhout for any one inside. He did throw the five shilling piece into her lap, but could not say whether he said anything about that squaring it. He was not perfectly sober at the time. There might have been something said that he did not remember now.

By Defendant—He was intoxicated and did not know whether that was a licensed house or not. Defendant denied that she had sold the drinks in question, or that she ever did it. She said the police had a down on her because they could noL get what they wanted from her. The Magistrate said if the evidence of the constables was to be believed, there could be little doubt of the case haying been proved. The whole pointed to the belief that defendant did mean to sell liquor, and that if she had not been threatened with proceeding * she would not have returned the money

There was ne reason to disbelieve the three constables, and he considered the case proved. The people at Addison's had already been warned, and in future fines must be substantial. The fine in this case would be £2O or two months' imprisonment. Inspector Franklyn applied, under the 37th clause of the Act that defendant should be detained till a returin was made on the distress warrant, for if she was allowed to leave the Court she would very likely bo away by the first steamer.

The Magistrate made an order to that effect, and the defendant was removed in custody. BREACH OF THE LICKNSING ORDINANCE. Ann Grallaher, of Addison's Flat, was brought up, charged with the same offence as the last defendant, on the 23rd June last.

Senior Constable Groodall proved that on the day in question he was in company with Constable O'Mara, and a woman named Margaret Ashton. The latter complained of being ill from the effects of previous drink, and witness gave her a shilling to get a drink with. She then went into defendant's house, the witness at the time being about twenty yards distant. On her going into the house they came up to the window, and saw defendant serve her with some kind of liquor, and take something from the counter. Ashton then came outside. Defendant's house is exactly like a public house, and there were shelves completely filled with bottles. She had no license to sell spirits. He gave her a week to take out a license, and after that another week, as she promised to do so, but she did not, and eventually sent him a message that she would not take out a license. Constable O'Mara corroborated the previous witness.

Margaret Ashton proved that she got brandy at defendant's house, and put down a shilling on the counter, but did not see defendant take it up. She was then in custody, and being ill from previous drink, Constable G-oodall allowed her to go in to defendant's, and gave the shilling she put down. In reply to defendant, witness said that when she went in she asked defendant for God's sake to give her a drink. Defendant, besides giving her a drink, half filled a lemonade bottle. She put down the shilling at the end of the counter, and defendant might not have seen it. The defendant declared that she never received the money, or knew that it was paid till the constables came in and began searching her place for liquor. She gave Ashton the brandy out of charity, as the latter had the horrors from drink.

The magistrate considered the circumstances differed in some degree from the last, it was not shown that she was in the habit of supplying liquors, nor was there evidence of other people being in the place drinking. Defendant also had had a license aud the penalty would therefore be only £5, or one month's imprisonment. Inspector Franklyn said in this case he did not ask for defendant to be detained, and she was allowed to leave the court, the fine to be levied by distress. ALLEGED LAMP BBEA.KING.

Aim O'Donnen was complained against by Robert Hayne for maliciously and wilfully breaking a lamp, the property of complainant. Mr Pitt for the complainant. Mr Tyler for the defence. Mrs Hayne stated that her husband kept the Eoyal Oak. She knew the defendant, Ann O'Donnell. On the morning of Sunday she saw defendant. Her attention was attracted by a stone striking against iron, and it was afterwards ascertained that it struck the lamp iron. She immediately went out of the private door and saw the defendant. The latter was only a few feet distant, and was in the act of throwing a stone. The night was bright moonlight, and the time was about 1 o'clock in the morning. The stone defendant threw, struck the lamp and broke the glass, after which she immediately ran into her own house. At the time witness saw a man at the threshold of her house. She called out " I've caught you," but defendant made no reply. She distinctly swore it was the defendant. She had no doubt of it whatever.

By Mr Tyler—One pane of the lamp was broken and another was cracked. Defendant was standing about three or four feet from the front door. The Eoyal Oak fronts the river and hers fronts the same way. There were noisy men in the street that night but before this took place, and it was not one of those that broke the lamp. She was inside defendant's house once but she did not call her any improper names on that occasion. She had never thrown stones at Mrs O'Donnell's place. She was certain that the stone defendant threw broke the lamp.

Robert Hayne proved that the lamp was broken on the night in question. The damage he entimated at 10s. Mr Tyler said that he believed the evidence given to be totally falae. Not only was Mrs O'DonneU in bed and asleep at the time, but it would have been impossible for her to break the lamp in the manner alleged. Further, he would show that the lamp was broken by others, and this" was a trumped up spiteful charge. A long discussion arose in consequence of Mr Tyler desiring the defendant to make a statement. Mr Pitt objected as she was defended by counsel and the Bench agreed with him, and the case proceeded. William Dale said he lived near the Koyal Oak, and on the night in question heard a noise, and on jumping up saw a party going round 'the corner, and at the same time heard a noise as of broken glass proceeding from the direction of the Koyal Oak. Ho thought at the time that Mr Hayne's was broken. He knew defendant's house, and from the position, was certain that it was impossible for any one standing at Mrs O'Donneli's door to break the lamp in the manner that it was.

By 1 Mr Pitt—The pane of glass broken was not the pane next Mrs O'Donnell's door. If Hayne and his wife had sworn that the pane was that next Mrs O'Donnell's, it was false, for he examined it next day. He heard the voices of drunken people going round the corner. He did not see them.

James Hudd, on Sunday morning, heard a stone strike his house, which was three sections from the Royal Oak, and heard some men pass on, and about the same time heard a noise as of glass fallinc;. He saw the lamp the next morning. The pane broken could not have been broken from Mrs O'Donnell's side.

By Mr Pitt—He would swear that the pane of glass next Mrs O'Donnell's was not broken.

Robert Hayne recalled by Mr PittHad heard the evidence by the last witnesses. If he turned the lamp round it would be almost impossible to put a light into it.

The Magistrate said this was a singular case, and one rather difficult to come to a conclusion on. The main question to consider was the probabilities of the case. After going carefully through the evidence he came to the conclusion that it was more probable that the drunken men passing had broken the lamp than that the defendant had come out at that hour of the night, and had throv/n stones in the manner alleged. He should, therefore dismiss the case, with costs. A case, M'Donald v. Sherlock, for abusive language, was dismissed. A number of civil cases were disposed of, but none of the slightest public interest.