RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 540, 7 August 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT

(Before J. Giles Esq., R, M.) Pbidat, Atjoust 6. BIGAMY. Thomas Braithwaite was brought up, on remand, charged with bigamy. The following witnesses were examined : Joseph White: lam registered under the Marriage Act as an officiating minister, and reside at Charleston. I recognise the prisoner as a person whom I married on the 10th of January, ISGB, after the receipt of a certificate from the Registrar of the District, to Elisabeth Alice M'G-ee. There were present, at the solemnization of the marriage, Mr William B. Gailand and his wife. I produce the book in which I usually register marriages solemuized by me. The signatures in that book, as made on the 10th of January, 18G8, are those of Thomas Braithwaite and Elisabeth Alice M'G-ee. [Elisabeth Alice M'Gee was called into Court and was recognised by the witness as the person whom he had married to the prisoner.] The other two signatures are those of the two persons —William B. Gallaud and his wife —who were present at the marriage. The prisoner handed to me the Registrar's certificate authorising the marriage. Tho witness Galland was the first who spoke to me about the solemnization of the marriage. The Magistrate to tho prisoner: Do you wish to ask the witness any questions ? The prisoner: None, yourAVorsliip. William Burfield Gallaud: lama builder, residing at Charleston. I recollect the 16th of January, last year. On that day I was present when the prisoner and Zdiss M'Gee were married by the Rev. Mr White. The signature in the register of marriage produced, as an attesting witness to the marriage, is my signature. The person whom I have seen in Court is the Miss M'Gee to whom the prisoner was married. Tho prisoner declined to cross-exam-ine the wituess.

Inspector Franklyn said that this was all the evidence he had to offer. On former occasions he had applied for a remand, so as to obtain, as a witness, a person named Shaw, who was in Otago, and who had been present at the prisoner's first marriage. Since that time he had received a telegram from the police in Otago, intimating that they did not know where Shaw was. The only wituess they knew of was the prisoner's former wife's mother. She was in Christchurch, and he had two telegrams from the Commissioner of Police there, stating that the wife's mother was ill, and could not travel. It was impossible to carry on the case without the evidence of that witness, and he asked that the prisoner should be remanded to Christchurch. The prisoner's former wife was also in Christchurch, living with her mother. The Magistrate complied with the application, and the prisoner was accordingly remanded to Christchurch. ASSAULT. John Dagg was charged by Patrick Farley with assault. There was another defeudant who had not been served, and some of the complainant's witnesses were also absent. The case was accordingly adjourned until Monday. CITIL CASES. Patrick Brennan sued Mrs Hawkins for 30s, the value of a window broken by her. The defendant stated that her name was not Mrs Hawkins, hut Mrs M'Culloch—Sarah M'Culloch ; and the summons was amended accordingly. The plaintiff's statement was that, on the night of the 23rd July, the defendant came to his door and knocked. He half-opened the door and again shut it, the defendant being intoxicated. She knocked again for a minute, and, when the knocking ceased, a stone five or six pounds in weight came through the window, breaking a cruet-staud and some other things. He went out at the back, and saw the prisoner forty or fifty yards away from the house, and there was no other person in the street.—The defendant's statement was that she had had an invitation to go to a ball and supper, which was being he 7 d in the plaintifFs house at the Caledonian, although its license had expired. It was called a "private quadrille party," but was, of course, open to every party. She did not care to go, but, with a little persuasion, she went. It was between eight and nine in the evening when she first went. Because she had another person with her, the complainant did not wish her to go in. The other party went home. She went into the ball-room, and was dancing all night. She had occasion to go outside. There were two or three men about, quarrelling about a woman, and stones were thrown by them at each other. She heard one smash through a window. The man ran away. One of the men took her by the hand, and she ran with him. She went back, and then the complainant said she had broken the window, which she denied, and she continued dancing till near daylight.—ln reply to the complainant, the defendant said she would not say the invitation had come from him. It was not on her own account she was objected to. It was on account of her mate, and she said that where she went her mate should go—her mate was as good as any person in the room. The complainant did take her by the shoulders, but it was not to put her out of doors—it

was simply " skylarking."—The Magistrate said it was impossible to decide positively as to the defendant being the person who had broken the window, and judgment was given for the defendant.