Today is my 150th appearance on these pages.

It is also my last Legally Speaking column and I wish to record how much I have enjoyed submitting it on a fortnightly basis during the past five years.

I marked my 100th contribution by confessing to 100 offences, including riding a bike during hours of darkness with no forward facing lamp.

But I don't think even I could scrape up a further 50 misdemeanours so I thought I would have a look at what our Courts were doing in Dunedin 150 years ago; 1859 was the target.

The precursor to the Otago Daily Times was the Otago Witness and a leisurely gander at the legal tidbits of the day was a delight.

Written in the dainty language of the day, the reports nevertheless deal with topics relevant to today's offences. Little has changed.

The young City appeared to have monthly sittings of the Resident Magistrate's Court for petty criminal matters, similar sittings of a District Court for civil disputes and the occasional appearance of a visiting Supreme Court judge for serious crime and His Honour was frequently reported as bemoaning the substandard facilities of the Court and adjacent jail.

On March 5, 1859, Resident Magistrate Mr J. Gillies heard the case of 10 seaman charged with "disobedience of orders and general insubordination".

They were a right scruffy lot.

He found them all guilty and gave them all 12 weeks' imprisonment with hard labour.

Why did we abolish this option? On Friday, March 25, John McMahon was fined 10 shillings for being found drunk on the race course but he was given the choice of spending 48 hours in prison instead.

There then followed a detailed defended case of stealing and receiving 50lbs of apples from a property in Northeast Valley. John Gebbie reported the apples stolen and the home of sisters Mary Anne and June Paterson was searched and the apples discovered.

They snitched on some scoundrels who had brought the apples to them but they denied any criminal knowledge themselves.

In came Thomas Aimers and Archibald Markby who admitted the offence and, on the spot, the magistrate severely reprimanded them and one month's imprisonment with hard labour was summarily imposed.

Bang! Wallop! Case closed!

The two sisters were then charged with receiving stolen property, which they also denied. They were remanded until the Monday and, lo and behold, up before the Court step James Stevens and Joseph Henderson, who gallantly took the rap and each immediately received one month's imprisonment with hard labour as well.

The hapless sisters were remanded to the next day and finally the Magistrate somewhat reluctantly dismissed the charges against them.

On 2 April, Peter Crawford, of Green Island, was charged with "assaulting and beating Janet MacDonald".

Apparently Peter's Dad had shot one of her hens.

A fearful argument ensued and Peter was alleged to have struck Janet twice in the face and then kicked her on the ground.

But the evidence was very conflicting and a witness alleged that "Janet had put herself into a fighting position and struck the blow".

The paper then reports some angry comments by the Magistrate.

"After a series of recriminating expressions from the complainant who almost defied the Magistrate who was at last obliged to threaten to give her in charge of the constables if she did not control her temper."

The Beak obviously did not find her a credible witness and the charge was dismissed.

He also dismissed the next charge against a drunk man for assaulting a barman at the Commercial Inn.

On Tuesday, May 3, a list of civil cases was heard mainly involving breach of contract claims for wages.

On May 18 it is reported that "George Brown, Butcher, was charged with giving spiritous liquors to Potiki, a person of the native race, contrary to the provisions of the Sale of Spirits Ordinance."

He was fined 40 shillings with costs, and I am intrigued at the little extra note that the "fine was to go to the informer".

On Monday, June 6, a resident was fined 5 shillings for allowing his cattle to roam in Northeast Valley and on the following day Edmund Smith was charged with assault with intent on his partner.

The reported facts are so very 2009: "He took hold of me and threw me on the bed.

I tried to get up and he hit my head against the bed post," she said in evidence. But the charge was dismissed. The Magistrate found some reasonable doubt.

A civil case then took place. William Heenan, of Waipori, had sold the plaintiff 60lbs of butter for retail selling in the city.

The butter turned out to be rancid and the plaintiff naturally wanted his money back.

It was a simple case of breach of contract. But after hearing all the evidence, the magistrate found that the plaintiff had left it far too long to complain before doing anything and the action was dismissed.

All of this took place almost exactly 150 years ago.

Rather than exacting personal revenge or taking the law into their own hands, the early settlers had been quick to set up a credible institution of public courts for the punishment of crime and the resolution of disputes.

This is the hallmark of a civilised society.

Respect for the law and the institutions of the law may be hard for some people to understand, but without it we simply revert to the law of the jungle.