POLICE COURT.—WEDNESDAY.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 266, 16 November 1870, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—WEDNESDAY.

[Before H. D. Morpeth and G. P. p^rce Esqs., Justices.] I ' Drunkenness.--J. Black and C. CaNpi on for first offences, G. Hesford and A. Mcli\ll atl ' for second offences, were punished in the usual manner.

Vagrancy.— J. Bnshnell, for ha.ing no lawful visible means of support, being proved on the evidence of the police to be a beggar and idle, and with habits of sleeping i n jjj^ premises, was sent to gaol for three months Assault.—T. Cain was charged with having assaulted Ellen Whitaker. by kicking her in the face with his boot.—Ellen Whitaker deposed to a usual Chancery-street scene, in which " your'e another" resulted in the assault in question. —Elizabeth Ewman corroborated the statement of the incidents.—Detective Murphy deposed to having arrested prisoner. Prosecutrix was bleeding.—The prisoner who described his feelings as having been wounded by the language of the prosecutrix, was ia.. prisoned for one month. Larceny.—The two charges of larceny against Carl Williams, for having stolen oertain articles from Mr. A slier and Mr. IdoLachlan, were, on the application of Mr. Joy, who with Mr. Rodgers appeared for the prisoner, adjourned till to morrow morning. ("NXAWFULLLY ABSENTING FROM HIBED Service. —Stephen Marks was charged, by, James Borley with having on 14th November unlawfully absented himself from his apprcti. tieeship.— Mr. Wynn for the prosecutor. Mr. '] Joy for the defence.—Charles Brookes proved-1 indentures, dated 2nd April, 1870.—James Borley deposed to defeadant having gone away;', on Saturday evening and not returned.—Cross examined at considerable length by Mr. Joy 7. to show ill-treatment on the part of the maater. —For the defence brother-in-law to defendant deposed to defendant having been suffering from his eyes.—Charles Brookß re-A called, deposed to the hours usual with apprentices which were considerable shorter thanthose enforced from defendant.-Patrick Marks father to the boy, deposed to the illneßs ofrhi»v eyes, and to their never being ill before, andafter endeavouring to effect an arraugement for the shortening of the hours, the Bench dismissed the case.

Highway Rates.— Jon. Probert was charged by Herbert Ash ton, the collector for the Karangahape Highway Board with refusing to pay the sum of Bs. 10d., ratesl due by him to I that Board. Mr. Lusk for the pMntiff, and! Mr. Wynn for the defence. Mr. Lusk having ' laid the facts of the case before the- Bench*" the following witnesses were called: —Herbert; i Ashton deposed that he was collector of rates for the Karangabape Higbway Board. Thft v name of the defendant was on the assessment list as the owner of oertain property within the district.—Cross-examined by Mr. Wynn . The assessment was posted up within the shop of Mr. Wilkes, Newton.—Mr. Wynn said that this fact alone was sufficient to insure a dismissal of the case : the inside of the shop was not within the meaning of the Act as conspicuous.— Mr. Rice gave evidence to the effect that the place where the list was left was a public and conspicuous one. — Considerable discussion arose as to the meaning of the term conspicuous.—Mr. Morpeth said that his own individual opinion was that the list should be posted in the open air.—■ 7 Mr. Lusk said he .had a witness who would ; provs that the notice was posted in the open air.—Mr. Wilkes dfJKraed that he kept thy Eureka store, East-str'6et, Newton. The assessment roll was posted outside of his Bliop for a short time, and it was afterwards taken inside, and a notice put outside that the assessment roll could be seen within.—Mr. Wynn contended that the case was not altered by Mr. Wilkes' evidence. —In answer to MrPierce the witness said an advertisement yfasput in the papers, showiag where the assessment rolls .rcquld be seen.—Mr. Wynn.; contended jthat this would have no | bearing on tlie case, and contended that the' case must be dismissed. —Mr. Lusk replied.-— After a short consultation, the —chfti^man said* the Bench could not agree,, and' Ijbe case wasconsequently dismissed.—We understand that the point upon which the justices differed was the meaning ot the term " conspicuous, Mr. Morpeth being of opinion that the terms of the Act had not been, complied with, Mr. Pierce holding the contrary opinion.—Thiß. was all the business.