RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 471, 27 February 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Fbiday, Feb. 26. (Before J. Giles, Esq., 8.M.) Thomas "Walsh, residing at the South Spit, was charged with using provoking and insulting language. Inspector Franklyn explained that the chargehadto be brought in peculiar form, and under the Justice of the Peace Act, as the Constabulary Act was not applicable to the South Spit. The Inspector, and Constable Franklyn, and Mrs Pascoe, a neighbour of the defendant's gave evidence as to his conduct, in maltreating his wife, creating a disturbance, and using obscene and abusive language. The defendant's excuse was that he had sold a boat on Thursday, and had undoubtedly got intoxicated. The Magistrate explained that, under the Justice of the Peace Act, the defendant, in the absence of finding security for his behavior for a period, was liable to imprisonment for that time. He did not think the act was, in that respect, to be generally applied, and he would accept moderate security for the defendant keeping the peace for a moderate time—362o personal security, and one surety of £lO, for one month. CIVIL CASES. Joseph Trimble v. Julia Bass.—A claim of £2 paid by the plaintiff for the defendant's passage from Hokitika. Mr Tyler appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Pitt for the defendant.

The plaintiff stated that his " M.C." had brought from Hokitika the defendant and another girl, to dance at the Theatre Royal. The offer was that half of their passage-money should be paid, and that they should receive £3 per week. He paid the defendant's passage-money, half of which she was to re-pay, and she was to remain in his service a month. She stayed in the house only two nights—Saturday and Sunday last—and left on the Monday. She refused to re-pay the £2. Thomas Hamlet, " M.C." had called on the defendant, but she refused to pay. She gave no reason. The defendant, in her evidence, denied that she had entered into any agreement. When requested to do so by Mrs Trimble, she refused to do so until she found out " what sort of a house it was." It was on the same understanding that she had come up from Hokitika. She danced on Saturday night, but she resolved not to stay, as " it was too low." She was told it would be better, and danced again on Monday night, but" found it very low," and left. By Mr Tyler: I was dancing in the Casino in Hokitika before I came here. I was dancing there six weeks. Before that time I was in Melbourne. I decline to answer what I was doing there. I was living with my friends. I have been living since IleltMr Trimble's with Misa Johnston, in Freeman street. Mr Tyler: "What is Miss Johnston's. The defendant: It is a house. Mr Tyler: What sort of a house ? The defendant: I believe it is a respectable house. The Magistrate said the question which arose was what contract was

there, and, if there was a contract, did anything occur to induce the defendant to break it. If there was an engagement she had shown nothing to release her from it. The only ground was that it was not such a respectable place as she wished. These places were, no doubt, always more or less demoralising, and, where a reasonable defence was made, on that ground there would always be some leaning against them by the Court, where they might be seen to be evil and demoralising. But there must be some evidence. It did not follow that, because a girl did not find a place of the kind exactly to her taste, or rougher in style to what she had been accustomed, she would be justified in setting up that as a defence. He did not think that, in that respect, the defendant had made any defence. The Court could not recognise every variety of taste or fastidiousness in such situations. Whatever contract there might have been, the defendant would be bound by it, but he did not think she had entered into any agreement for a month. The plaintiff was not cognisant of any agreement made at Hokitika. The defendant's statement was that half the passage-money would be paid if she cam© to "Westport. He could quite imagine that any agreement would be made by the plaintiff , when the parties came to Westport, and, considering the agreement to have been, as it was stated by the defendant, made in Hokitika, he would give judgment for half the passage money. ' Judgment for the plaintiff for £l, with costs of Court, and professional fee.