Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Tagged (None yet)

Add Tags

Comments

Show 1 comment
  • doug.butler 22 Jun 2012 at 19:43
    For Paul Whitford Jackson read Peleg Whitford Jackson

Add New Comment

5 corrections, most recently by etoime1 - Show corrections

POLICE COURT—ADELAIDE.

THURSDAY, JUNE 13. [Before Mr. S. Beddome, P.M., and Dr. Forster.]

Habitdal Drcnkabd.— Jotepfi Patrick Irers was charged with being a habitual drunkard, and therefore an idle and disorderly person within the meaning of the Police Act. He was sent to prison, and ordered to be kept to hard labor for three weeks. AsaAULnno the Pouc?. — Stuan Caranagh was charged with assaulting Police-constable Mutlow in the execution of bis duty, on Jane 12, and was fined 40s. and coats, in all £3 ss. Leaving a Cast in the Streec— John Seed was charged upon the information of Inspector Bee for allowing his horse and cart to stand longer than was necessary on June 6. The Court did uot think the defendant to blame, and dismissed the information. Fubxods Drivxko. — John Doaling was fined ss. and costs, for furious driving in Currie street, on June 7. Masters and Servants Act.— George Rowley was charged on the information of Paul Whitford Jackson, managing partner for Cobb & Co., with unlawfully deserting the service of that firm. Mr. Bundey for the prosecution, and Mr. Parker for the defendant. The informant stated that the defendant had been driver with the firm of Cobb & Co. since 1st January, for some time between Strathalbyn and Milang, and latterly between Adelaide and Athelston. On Thursday last the defendant left his service, saying he was going to Strathalbyn, and did not return. They were in consequence put to great inconvenience. Mr. Parker, in cross-examination, elicited that the partners in the firm of Cobb & Co. were Messrs. P. W. Jackson, H. Hill, B. Rounsevell, and J. B. Meggs; that the defendant was engaged as a general mail-driver, and not upon any particular road; that the defendant had

the contract for the man between Milang and Strathalbyn; that under the agreement produced Cobb & Co. had carried the Milang mail Saturday evening, when they could not get It, and he believed the defendant carried it; that he could not my whether he had applied to the Postmaster- General for a transfer of the contact; that Mr. B. Rounsevell told him be was going to make a change, and he believed one of his partners went with the defendant to Mr. Way's office to sign an agreement; that he believed Mr. Rounsevell had been to Mr. Way's office with respect to some contract with Rowley. By Mr. Bundey—There was a contemplated agreement with Rowley as to service only. Mr Parker, not being able to call the defendant, stated that the defendant had a contact for the mail between Milang and Strathalbyn, which it was arranged should be transferred to Cobb and Co., but this not having been done, Rowley found it necessary, on account of the responsi bilities resting upon him, to go up to Milang. He therefore confidently submitted that the agreement of service was subservient to the contract with Post-Office authorities. Mr. Bundey contended that the defendant had, by the contract which had been put in by himself, clearly shown that he had really transferred his Milang contract to Cobb & Co. He simply asked for a conviction in order to show drivers that they must not leave service without notice, but did not press for a heavy penalty. J. W. Lewis, Postmaster-General. said he knew the de fendant, who was a contractor with the Post- Office. Believed his bonds were signed, and he was the responsible party for the oontract. Had seen him several times about his contract. Had objected to transfer any contracts to Cobb & Co., in order to set his face against a monopoly, but he believed Cobb and Co. had been carrying this contract on sub rosa. Believed that a few weeks ago he had to inflict a fine for the late delivery of this mail. The defendant made a lengthy explanation of the circumstances of the case. The Police Magis trate stated that in this case the Bench were divided in opinion. He thought the defendant should be fined 1s., and Dr. Forster was of opinion that the information should be dismissed. Under these circumstances he suggested an ad journment. Subsequently Mr Commissioner Hamilton was requested to take his seat on the   Bench, and gave bis opinion that the defendant should be fined. The defendant was accordingly fined 1s. [Before Mr. S. Beddome, P.M., and Mr. J. W. Lewis.] AaSAVue— lToak Shrtevc, was charged with luwmitinghb wife, bot the hearing of the ease was postponed tin next morning, in the hope of a settlement. Bobbebt ft a PBosnnnx.— CkrisUna WO -liaau was charged with stealing from the person of Gottfried Jaggar, two £1^ notes and a £5 note. In this case (he prosecutor had been in the company of the pwanm^- on Wednesday evening, and she left him saying afae would aoonreton. She did not return,and then he missed his pocket-book ~"?«"ii"c the money ahovementuned. He gave infocmatian to the police, and afae was arrested. Richard Hilton, landlord of the Scotch mbistJe Hotel, North a^«.i?;^ o stated the prisoner came to his hoMeon Wednesday evening and bought some rum, favoring in payment a, £10 note (pro dnceJ), which he changed. Cad Ekae, in whose employ the prisoner was, said she came home on Wednesday evening with eight £1 notes in her hand, and aaid her poor mother had sent them to her. The prisoner, who de clined to say anything, was committed for trial at the Supreme Court. Lunacy.— Mary Ann Drake was charged with being a pauper lunatic. Her husband gave evi dence of a strangeness and incoherency in her manner, but it appearing that Mrs Drake was not a pauper within the terms of the Act, His Worship said he could not direct her removal to the Asylum. He recommended Mr Drake, however, to obtain the certificate of two medical men for her admission into the Asylum.

Zoom

plus
thumb
minus
left
thumb
right
up
thumb
down