CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before G. G. Graham, Esq., S.M.)

Theft of Government Money.—Hugh Anderson was charged with, on the 4th ult., at Waikpuaiti, then being a clerk in the employ of the New Zealand Government, stealing £2 in money, the property of his employers. Mr Hanlon appeared for accused, who pleaded guilty.—Chief-detective O’Brien said that accused was in the employ of the Railway Department at Waikouaiti on the date in mention. The railway station at Waikouaiti was also used as a post office, and it appeared that a letter containing £2 arrived there for a resident in the district. On the letter reaching the person to whom it was addressed it was found that it had been tampered with, and the money extracted. Suspicion fell upon accused, and on being interviewed he admitted the offence. He said he was in difficulties at the time owing to beating transactions, qnd he was tempted to take the money.—Mr Hanlon, in asking His Worship to deal leniently with the lad, said that accused was before the Court last week charged with stealing chocolates, but after some discussion Mr Carew decided to give him a chance. Counsel pointed out that both offences were committed before the youth was before the Court last Thursday. It seemed a pity to send the lad to gapl.—His Worship said he was loth to send accused to prison. He would be fined 60s and costs, and ordered to make restitution of the stolen. Maintenance. —Peter Charles Connell was ordered to pav £2 a month towards the maintenance of his mother.

Charges in Connection with a Prohibited Person.—James' Barclay was charged with having, on the 24th February, being an innkeeper, supplied beer to David Bethune, a person already in a state of intoxication. Mr D. D, Macdonald, on behalf of defendant, pleaded not guilty.—Sergeant O’Neill said that on the date named a man named Bethune left his home in King street in a state of intoxication and got into a conveyance. He was in such a condition that his son found it necessary to ride on horseback immediately behind the conveyance to prevent any accident befalling him on the way. Bethune pulled up at the Salutation Hotel, of which defendant was the licensee, and defendant supplied him with two bottles of beer. Evidence was given by David Bethune, jun., John Bethune, Fanny Bethune, and Sergeant Gilbert.—Mr Macdonald said the evidence as to when Bethune left his home was extremely hazy. One witness said it was four o'clock, another one about five o’clock, and the wife a bit later, so that the time was not fixed. The father was at home during the afternoon, except between two and three o’clock, and later on got into this cart and went to Barclay’s Hotel. Counsel would cairßarclay, who would tell the Court whether Bethune was drunk. The son came to the hotel, and told Barclay that he would “have him” for supplying drink to a prohibited person. Barclay told him that he did not know the man was a prohibited person. Young Bethune then said he would “have him” (defendant) for supplying drink to a person who was drunk. Barclay turned round to several who were in the bar, and referred the question as to whether*-Bethune was drunk to them, and they said the— did not consider he was drunk. Counsel pointed out that punishment meant an endorsement on the license, and reached even the landlord. Several witnesses would be called, who would speak as to the condition of Bethune. As a matter of fact, no money passed hands, because the son interfered and nrevented it.—James Barclay, the defendant, had been a licensee of hotels for over twenty-one years, and there had never before been a charge against him. He saw the man Bethune getting off his cart, and he came into the bar. The man was quite sober. There were other people in the bar when Bethune came in. Bethune asked for a bottle of beer. Witness put the bottle of beer in a basket, and before Bethune took hold of the basket Bethune’s son grabbed the basket and took it away, sayipg: “ No you don’t.” As far as he knew, he never saw Bethune before, and he did not know that Bethune was a prohibited person. Bethune-gave no appearance of being drank. The "father and son had a scuffle in the bar over the bottle. The son told, witness that his father was a prohibited person. The 'son wak very excited, and wanted to argue the point with witness. When the son left the bar he said he wonld accuse witness of supplying a drunken person with liquor, jiethnne appeared to be perfectly sober. He never paid for the beer, as the son prevented him from paying. John Callan, P. J. Stakes, Henry Cotton, R. Wilson, AWindAr Coutts, J. C. M. Kanion, and Daniel CUffey also gave' evidence for; the defence.-—-His Worship, in giving judgment, said it was a very important ease, and he considered that no publican could commit a rtarse offence than' supplying drunken man. There oo douty that |Wh«w left l^>

in agnate of fiwr he wa» dnmk when te arrtfcd at the Salutation Hotel M i differantM«tion. Several witmams hidbeen dffladfe {Mbye that the man was sober aim be entered the hotel. Mr Barclay had been given an excellent character by several witnesses, and the police had nothing against hint; so under the circumstances he felt be nts justified in dismissing the case, •'laae dismissed.

The Hatfields Again. Gertrude Marie Oatfield charged her husband, William GatficM, with foiling to support her. Mr Thornton appeared for the defendant.—The complainant said her husband had only arrived from the North Island this morning. He had promised to give her 15s a »aAt when he was away, but had not kept his & promise. They had always been good rriebds except when be was minting. His bad health had prevented him wonting for some time past.—Cross-examined: It was not true that her drinking habits caused the home to be split up! When the furniture was sold up die was given £5. They then started another home in Oamarn, and that home was broken np through her husband and his brothers drinking. When the home was broken up they lived again together in Christchurch. She admits being out all night with a Salvation friend the night before the home was split up. She thought her husband had lately been troubled with “a bit of laziness.” She had no idea as to her husband’s means. The defendant had not taken a husband’s care of her at all, and she was longing for the result of the divorce proceedings that were pending. She had been away night after night, but it was only because she was frightened of befog murdered.—To the Bench: She had been convicted of drunkenness in both Oamarn and Dunedin. A prohibition order had been taken out against her within the last two days.—Mr Thornton submitted that the case had only been brought through spite. The woman had broken up home after home, and as a matter of fact the husband was sot in a position to support her. He was in illnealth, and had been sent by his friends to Botorua to try and recover his health.—William Gatfield in his evidence said that when .he married the complainant he had a home which cost him £7OO, and he had £4OO wprth of furniture. This home was broken up through his wife’s bad habits. She used to stop out night after night. They then formed a home at Oamarn, and this home also was broken np through his wife’s bad habits. At the present time he was penniless, and had no billet.' He was still in fold health, and bad no means.—The case was dismissed, His Worship saying that upon the complainant’s own evidence he was not justified in making an order. A Prohibited Person in Trouble.—David Bethune, who was defended by Mr Hanlon, admitted having tried to obtain drink at the Salutation, Scotia, and Haip of Ejin Hotels.-—He was fined 60s and costs, in default one month’s imprisonment with hard labor on the charge of entering the Sainfotion Hotel, and on the other charges he was convicted and discharged upon payment qf the costs. George Deans, who did not appear, was charged with accompanying David Bethune, a prohibited person, into the Scotia Hptel. —After police evidence and the evidence <f the licensee he was fined 60s and costs. His Worship said it was as well for the public to know that anyone who aided and abetted a prohibited person in obtaining drink was quite as liable as the prohibited person.

[Left sitting.]