RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 856, 2 September 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Feiday, Septembee 1. (Before J. G-iles, Esq., R.M.) cook v. COOK. The complainant in this case had laid an information charging the defendant, her husband, with the use of threatening language, and asking that he be bound over to keep the peace. The informant, sworn, stated that she had a protection order, and lived apart from her husband. She took possession of a cottage on Friday last; and her husband came there on the Saturday, but did not say what he came for. She tried to hold the door against him, but he pushed it open and gotinside. When requested togo he refused to do so, whereupon the informant threatened tjgo to the camp. The defendant begged her to desist, and the informant went to bed, her husband shortly afterwards attempting to burst the door in. The informant got up, and tried to get out by the front door, the defendant trying to prevent her, and saying that he would "be hanged for her yet?" Ultimately, the informant reached the camp. Witness proceeded to relate further threatening behaviour on the part of the defendant the following Sunday, when the latter said he would do for her and a Mrs Hall. Ou the Monday evening two officers of police came to the house to see that the defendant did not molest her, and they had barely been a minute in the house, when her husband burst open the back door, and, on seeing the police, pretended to be taken ill, and to faint, asking for water. By the Bench : The defendant did not say what he wanted, but I suppose he wanted me to support him, as I have done hitherto. The defendant declined to make any statement in explanation, and when reminded by his Worship that if he were ordered to find sureties for hip future good conduct, and were unable to procure them, it would be tantamount to imprisonment for the term, he expressed his perfect readiness to go to gaol. His Worship then called upon the defendant to enter into his own recognizance to keep the peace for three months in the sum of £SO, and two sureties of £2O each. DUNN T. MOKEIS. In this case the defendant was charged upon iuformation with haying used threatening language on August 30th towards the informant. W. Dunn: On Wednesday Constable Temperiey called to place me in possession of the portion of the section situated at the back of my cottage, and upon which the defendant resided. When I went to the house with Temperly she flew out of it with an axe, and said that she would knock my brains out. A constable took the axe from her. She also threatened me with a piece of wood. Constables Temperly and O'Meara gave corroborative evidence. The defendant was sworn, and stated that she had the axe in her hand splitting some kindling wood when the police and Dunn burst open the door of her house. She did nothing to Dunn uutil she was provoked by his grinning at her, and saying that he would have chopped the house down if she had not gone out. Her children and self wore turned out of the house into the rain. Slio had received constant provocation from Dunn, who would come round the house and grin at her. Ho also . frightenod the children by making faces at them. She did not moan anything by tho language she used. What slio said was under oxcitoment.

His Worship stated that ho believed

the defendant had used the language under excitement, and, although she had acted most unjustifiably, he would take into consideration the fact of her being ejected from her dwelling, which was likely to have the effect of arousing an angry feeling. It was fortunate for the defendant that the police had not taken action against her for resisting them in the 'execution of their duty, or the consequence might have been more serious. He should not bind over the defendant, in the present case, to keep the peace, but would strongly advise her to avoid any behavior to the complainant which would warrant his laying a second information. publican's license.

Amelia Hayne applied for a license for the Royal Oak Hotel. His Worship stated that he could not grant a license to the applicant, she being a married woman. The license would have to be granted to the husband, and Mrs Hayne could apply for leave of absence for some fixed time to be granted her husband. Application to be amended and brought on for hearing on Tuesday next. crvii, CASE. Christopher Brown v, J. Clark — Claim for £3 7s. Jndgment for plaintiff by default in the amount claimed and costs.