>From Western Post POLICE COURT Friday July 19th Before the Police Magistrate, his Worship the Mayor, and T CADELL, Esq. James GARBUTT, charged with being a prisoner of the Queen, his ticket having been cancelled. C HARDY, Chief Constable, apprehended the prisoner on the 6th of July outside the Royal Oak Hotel. Prisoner said he thought it very hard, after being acquitted by a jury, that he should be taken again into custody. He was within his district, and did not know why his ticket was cancelled; he thought he was entitled to liberty, if not he should have to serve five years. The Bench said they had no power but to send him to Sydney, and made an order accordingly. Charles WILLIAMS, a prisoner convicted at the late Quarter Sessions, was brought up charged with having escaped from the Constable who had him in charge after his trial. Constable MILLER said he had charge of three prisoners in the kitchen of the Royal Oak, who were all standing before the fire; prisoner left the fire and went into a little room adjoining, where he walked up and down. The nose of foot step having ceased, he looked into the room and found that WILLIAMS had made his escape through the window, which had only been protected by a few pieces of wood nailed across. Had not lost sight of him more than five minutes; he immediately went in search; on the following night he met prisoner in the bush, who said he was very sorry for running away, and wished to give himself up. Constable FARRAND went in search of the prisoner on Saturday morning; saw him near the Burrundulla brick yards between one and two o'clock, when he called out to him to stop; he immediately ran ! away through the fence and escaped into the bush; saw him again, when he had his (FARRAND's) hat on, which he had lost when running after him the first time he saw him. Prisoner, on being asked if he wished to say anything, said he was very sorry for what he had done. The Bench said they had only once course, which as to commit him for trial. Edward MEALY for wages due. Mr JAMES appeared for defendant. Joseph PERCOCK - was hired by defendant as general servant to Mr R FITZGERALD for three months at the rate of £30 per annum; he had received £1 2s 6d in store goods, and claimed £6 7s 6d being the balance due, which defendant refused to pay unless a contra account was deducted which he disputed. Defendant having too freely indulged himself at Mr HEARD's, the Bench told him that he deserved imprisonment for contempt of Court. As the set-off was partly a grog score it was disallowed. An order was made for the amount claimed. J D LITTLE for assault. Mr BRODRIBB for complainant. L GORDON said the defendant and Mr LAMROCK called upon him about 9 o'clock on Tuesday night, saying he wanted to change the receipt he had given for the horse, which was the cause of an action at the last sitting of the District Court; they had a dispute about the matter, and went to FOREMAN's, afterwards to Mr ATKINSON's, who was gone to bed. LITTLE called him a 'jackass' and knocked him down; he got up, when LITTLE took hold of him by the hair of his head, pulled him down again, and kicked him. After struggling with him on the ground he got up and ran away; LITTLE ran after him, and again knocked him down, when he cried out "murder". William MURPHY knew the parties before the Court; hearing a row on Tuesday night he ran out and saw LITTLE knock GORDON down. After the first round GORDON said that will do. LITTLE, however, was not satisfied, and hit him again. They had a scuffle and tore each other by the hair of t! heir heads. Defendant denied striking the first blow and called Mr LAMROCK, who said that GORDON, having struck LITTLE on the shoulder, he (LITTLE) returned the blow; they then caught hold of one another by the hair of their heads. He tried to separate them, saying that it was not worth squabbling about; they both fell, when GORDON cried out, "hold, enough, I will take out a summons". Mr BRODRIBB having addressed the Bench, the Police Magistrate said as there was a counter charge, they would first hear it before giving their decision. The parties then changed places. The evidence was a repetition of the former case. LITTLE was fined 20s, GORDON 1s; each to pay 6s 4d costs. Joseph TOMLINSON, adjourned case for balance of wages due to E HOY. Mr CLARKE for the defence, called TOMLINSON, who said he was walking in the Wilbertree-lane, when HOY came up to him and said he had just left old FOWLER, who was hunting him, and that he wanted a home. Not liking to see the man in distress, he offered him a home if he would help to burn two lots for lime, for which he promised to pay him 20s. The lime was not yet burnt; had given him 20s one day at FOREMAN's to enable him to treat his friends; he had likewise allowed him to run up a store account for £5. Cross-examined by Mr BRODRIBB: They had had a row about a big dog; thought it very natural to give the poor children bread, and very hard to see a wolf of a dog take it out of their mouths; had never promised to give HOY 20s per week; had befriended him when he was without food, home, or habitation. He was a poor weak creature at his work; had a "scrammy" hand and was not able to lift a bit of stone w! ithout letting it fall; 15s was the usual wages in his line. HOY was not worth that; made the set-off amount to £5 by charging him for things out of store, ointment, part of a bottle of rum, loss of time through his having hurt his hand, and for having to attend the Court. Sarah TOMLINSON, wife of defendant, was present when HOY came up; there was no agreement for wages. Case dismissed. ***END*** N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW