Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

POLICE COMMISSIONER'S COURT.
Monday, 28th September.
John Powell, a bricklayer's labourer, was charged with
assaulting Mary Anne Kate, Esther King, and Susan
Warner, three girls of tender age, with intent to commit a
rape, on the evening of Saturday last.
Mr Stephen appeared for the defence.
The examination was conducted in the Commissioner's
private room
It appeared from the evidence that he had indecently
assaulted the girl Kate, whom he dragged from under a
dray, but the evening being dark, the prosecutrix could not
swear to the prisoner's identity.
To the girl King he had offered money, and at the same
time seized her by the hand, but she declined taking the
money, and ran into Stuckey's. Nothing further occurred.
She did not know the man. It was quite dark, and she did
not look at his features,
Susan Warner's story was even less criminatory. The
prisoner had merely caught hold of her at Mr Monro's
door, and said " Hallo!" She knew him intimately, and
often spoke to him, as he lived near her sister's.
The policeman who took him into custody stated he was
drunk.
Mr Stephen submitted that not one of the cases had been
brought home to the prisoner; that his clothes only had
been spoken to. and it had been proved by the policeman,
in answer to a question from him, that every bricklayer in
town wore the same kind of dress. That with respect to
the last case, it was evidently only a rude recognition of an
old acquaintance in the mode usual with persons in the pri-
soner' s station in life.
The prisoner protested his innocence, and prayed his
Worship not to commit him, as it would deprive him of the
means of supporting an aged relative.
His Worship said he should not detain him, as the evidence
was not sufficiently conclusive against him, but
cautioned him to be careful how he laid hands upon young
children again.
Anne Sidd, alias Mrs Green, a good-looking young
woman, was charged with assaulting Louisa Pratt, wife of
William Pratt, blacksmith, Hindley-street, on the evening
of the 18th inst.
For the plaintiff, Mr Fisher; for the defendant. Mr
Stephen.
Mr Stephen submitted that the information was defective
on two grounds, which were fatal—1st, it was an informa-
tion on oath of the prosecutrix, but it stated it to have been
sworn on "his" oath, that is, the oath of her husband,
instead of " her" oath: 2dly, that the assault was not
charged to have been committed " against the peace of the
Queen," but "against the form of the Statute," whereas the
offence was an offence at common law, and not created by
any Statute.
Their Worships said that the conviction was under the
statute. By striking out" his " the information would still
be good; and, as the offence was said to be unlawful, the
form of conclusion might be rejected as surplusage.
Mr Stephen contended that an information upon which
their Worships were called upon then and there to adjudi-
cate, as judge and jury, ought to be as complete as an indict-
ment, and he questioned their power to amend.
Their Worships differed from the learned counsel, and
the case was proceeded with.
Mrs Pratt stated that, whilst sitting at supper, on the 18th
instant, she heard a noise, and her husband opened the door
and went out. Mr Green (the defendant's nominal hus-
band,) and Robert Kirk, a waterman, were quarrelling. She
called to Pratt to come in, as it was no business of his,
whereupon the defendant called her an old b—,followed
her into the road, shook her by the shoulders, said she was
a whore, and the keeper of a brothel.
Cross-examinined—Had never quarrelled with defendant
and did not call her opprobrious names.
Robert Kirk saw defendant swing Mrs Pratt by the right
shoulder, and heard the abusive language complained of.
Would swear Mrs Pratt did not return the Billingsgate com-
pliments. She was a respectable woman, and the mother
of a large family.
Harriet Dickens, another neighbour, was supping with
Mrs Pratt on the evening in question, and corroborated her
evidence. She had been nine months in the neighbourhood
and never heard them quarrel before.
For the defence Mr Stephen called Mr Green, but Mr
Fisher objected to his being examined, as he stood in a
somewhat near relation to the defendant.
Their Worships could not object to his evidence on that
account.
John Green (by Mr Fisher)— Ann Sidd was his house-
keeper.He was not married to her, but they lived together
as man and wife. He did not know that she went by the
name of Green. He did not call her so. He had never had
a sapling by her.
By Mr Stephen—He witnessed the affray. Mrs Pratt,
like her mother Eve, was first in the transgression, having
used disgusting language to Mrs Sidd, which led her to re-
taliate, and then they went at it as hard as they could.
Amongst other lady like expressions, he heard Mrs Pratt
tell his nominal wife that she was not only his mistress
but a whore. He was quite sober.
Henry Taylor, a labouring man, living at Green's, was pre-
sent at the neighbours opera; and, by way of interlude, heard
the plaintiff and defendant call one another all the bad names
they could. Did not see defendant lay hold of Mrs Pratt.
Mr Stephen submitted that the discrepencies in the evi-
dence of the parties were as great as those which arose out
of what the lawyers called a horse case, where there was
hard swearing on both sides. Here the witnesses had sworn
diametrically opposite to one another. But the probabili-
ties were on his client's side. Besides, it was hardly likely
that Mrs Sidd had seized Mrs Pratt by the shoulders, for
such an assault would naturally have been followed by a lew
scratches,—that being the favourite mode in which the
other sex carry on their pugelistic contests.
Mr Fisher thought the evidence cot only preponderated
numerically on his side, but that, in point of veracity and
respectability, it kicked the beam; and it was due to jus-
tice, public morals, and decency, that respectable parties,
like the complainant, should be protected.
Their Worships struck the balance in favour of the com-
plainant ; but, as she had let her tongue run too freely as
well as defendant, and not in the most honeyed strain, they
should only fine her five shillings and costs.
The fine was instantly paid, and Mr and Mrs Green left
the court not at all disposed to look blue at their Worships'
lenient decision.
Isaac Siadden appeared to answer the complaint of John
Crowder, for an assault.
Complainant stated that last Wednesday week he went to
Clarke's brewery, and as he wa going down the steps lead-
ing to the cellar, defendant seized him by the collar and
struck him. He then let go his collar and seized him by
the waist. They had a struggle, but defendant being the
stronger, he threw him with great violence against a heap of
wood, and hit him over the head. The defendant had pre-
viously threatened to murder him.
By defendant.— I was quite sober, and made use of no
bad language to you. I did not challenge you to fight
for £50.
By Mr Finniss.—He believed the defendant's animosity
arose out of a disputed account of seven years' standing.
Edward Halse stated he was foreman at Mr Clarke's.
Complainant came for some yeast. He was quite tipsy. The
defendant was sitting on a box smoking. Complainant
made use of very bad expressions, telling defendant he owed
him £35, and asking him when he was going to pay him.
He shook his fist in the defendant's face. The defendant
got up with the intention of putting him out of the brewery,
as he had no business there. A scuffle ensued, and the com-
plainant fell over the can of yeast. Witness did not see
any blows pass. He heard complainant challenge the de-
fendant to fight for £50.
John Coombs, another servant at the brewery, corrobo-
rated in every point the evidence of the previous witness.
Their Worships remarked that the defendant had come
prepared with two respectable witnesses to show he was not
guilty of the assault, but rather he (the complainant) was
culpable. Moreover, he had no witnesses, and they should
dismiss the complaint.
The complainant said it was no use ; he could not obtain
justice from their Worships, and be should therefore try
some other means.
Tuesday, 29th September.
James Muffin was brought up on remand, charged with
assaulting Mr Stuart, of the Fifth Creek, and stealing a
horse, the property of the Government.
Mary Ann Shingler, servant to Mr Stuart, knew the pri-
soner. Her master brought him through the house last
Wednesday evening into the kitchen. He inquired whe-
ther she had any tobacco, and looked all over the shelves
and into the adjoining roams. Her master came in and
asked the prisoner whether he had lit his pipe, and he
replied he had not.
By his Worship.—When he first came and was outside
the house, he rolled about and appeared very drunk; but
directly he entered he seemed quite sober. About half-an
hour after her master had put the prisoner off the premises,
he returned. She ran to acquaint her mistress, and saw her
master and the prisoner talking under the verandah. He
seemed sober the next time he came, and denied ever having
been on the premises before. The following night she
heard a noise, and on going to see what it arose from, she
found her master and the prisoner fighting.
Thomas Bettlemore, servant to Mr Stuart, saw the pri-
soner at his master's bourne last Thursday. He was in the
kitchen, and it was about eleven o'clock. He remained
with the prisoner in charge all night. He was perfectly
sober, and conducted himself very well. Witness went
into the garden the following morning, and found marks of
footsteps on the ground he had newly dug.
I Frederick Hogg, brickmaker, saw the prisoner on Thurs.
I day night, about half-past seven. He came to his but and
asked for a light. Next morning he saw a horse with a
saddle and bridle tied up. Would not touch it, as he was of
opinion all was not right. He saw two policemen, and
made them acquainted with it, and banded them the horse
over.
His Worship asked the prisoner whether he had anything
to say as to how he became possessed of the horse.
The prisoner gave the most contradictory statement, de-
claring first that he purchased it for £14, then that a person
named John Cook gave it to him, and then that he got it of
Mr Gepp.
His Worship committed the prisoner for trial.
$