LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6787, 18 August 1883, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.— Judge's Chajibebs. [Before Mr. .Tustico Gillies.] His Honor sat in Chambers yesterday and disposed of the following application : — Peobate.—On the motion of Mr. Armstrong, probate was granted of the will of W. T. Russell, late of Karanagahape-road, formerly of Dublin. BANKRUPTCY.—Meeting of Cbeditoes. Re John Henry Wilson.—A meeting of creditors was held yesterday in this estate.' The debtor was described as a commission agent. Mr. N. Brassey appeared for the debtor. The liabilities were set down at £1038, and the assets at £756, consisting of a claim against C. W. Drury, of Levuka, upon account o:t the Sea Breeze (late Tubal Cain), schooner, of £545 13s 6d, and a debt from W. G. Hunt (Wellington) of £215 18b 6d.—Mr. McMath thought the bankrupt should make some statement in regard to the first asset. There were two legal opinions upon the subject one from Messrs. Hesketh and Richmond, and another from a legal practitioner in Levuka. Messrs. Hesketh and Richmond would not advise going to law on the subject. Drury was not a British subject, and one Witbam was absolute owner. XilG debtor said he bought the vessel as a wreck. He expended a large amount in repairing, but mortgaged the vessel to Drury, who ultimately sold. There was a lawsuit, which resulted in the vessel being given up to one Witham, purchaser. The vessel was sold not under the mortgage deed, but to extinguish the title of one McEwen, who had an interest in her. The debtor said that Drury undertook to buy the vessel in, so that an opportunity might be given to him to raise the money requisite to I purchase. The debtor came to Auckland to I procure the money, but a memorandum was received from Drury intimating that there was a chance of the vessel being sold, but it | would maiuly depend upon the success of the I season, the Sea Breeze being in the Island trade. Mr. Thomas Macffarlane was elected I trustee.

POLICE COURT.—FRIDAY. [BoforeMessrs. F. L. Prime and F. G. Clayton, J.P.'sJ Drunkenness.—Four persons were punished for first and second offences. Larceny.—William Henry Harkins and David Amos White were charged with stealing oysters worth £2, the property of John Smith. The defendants, two small boys, pleaded guilty. The Bench, however, decided to hear the evidence. John Smith and John Knox were examined. The accused were discharged with a caution. Lakceny of an Overcoat.—Richard William Buchanan was charged with stealing an overcoat the property of William O'Sullivan. He pleaded not guilty, and on the application of the police the case was remanded till Tuesday. He applied to be admitted to bail, but Sergeant White opposed on the ground that prisoner had only just completed a sentence for larceny. Tke application was refused.

The Police and the Fike Bkjga.de— Arrest of a Fireman.—George Moore was charged with making use of threatening language in 4.lbert-Btreet, whereby a breach of the peace might have been occasioned ; also, with a breach of the Assaults on Constables Act, 1873, by wilfully obstructing Sergeant A. Clarke, while in the execution of his duty. Mr. Edwin Hesketh appeared for the defendant, and submitted that the charge disclosed no offence, as no breach of the peace was occasioned. He had several times raised the question, acd had lent the authority to Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Thomson admitted that there was no breach of the peace, but the accused by his blustering, violent conduct did his best to create one, and the officer did not arrest him until he was forced to do so, and while in command of the police force he would protect his men when they were in the right. Mr. Hesketh submitted that at fires tlio police were subservient to the officer of the Fire Brigade. Mr. Thomson : Absurd! Mr. Hesketh : Well, the Act says so. Mr. Hesketh then proceeded to quote the authorities. It had been ruled over seven years ago, in the case MacfFarlane v. Brett, when the authorities were produced. Mr. Thomson said he was not aware of any such ruling. If so, it was before he had anything to do with the district, and he asked Mr. Hesketh to produce some authorities. Mr. Hesketh said he had no power to take a book out of the Supreme Court library. Mr. Thomson said he would consent to an adjournment for a few days, in order that the authority might be produced. The Bench said the mind of the Bench was made up, first, on the objection raised by Mr. Hesketh, and second, that they regretted that any misunderstanding should arise between the two bodies, and that they o'ij;ht to shake hands and be friends. Mr. Thomson said that course had his full concurrence, but he thought Superintendent Hughes ought to make some public withdrawal of the statement he had made that the police did not assist him. Mr. Superintendent Hughes said that since Mr. Pardy left Auckland he had found a great difference, and the police, not protecting the hose or keeping the crowd off, stood in groups of threes and fours, and he had to place his own men to protect the hose. Since the arrest of the defendant, however, the police had given every assistance, and he believed the result would be to cement the good feeling between the police and the Fire Brigade. The dispute or ill feeling was not, he believed, between the police and the Fire Brigade, but the police and another body of which Mr. Moore was a member. Mr. Hesketh referred to the circumstances of the case, alluding to the action of the police in taking a fireman away from his duty before the fire at which he V7as engaged was extinguished, and then placing him in tbe dock on such a charge as this, and pointed out that it was the duty of the police to have assisted the Brigade.—The Bench dismissed both oases.

Driving ok tee Footpath. — Albert Fieldzer, charged with driving a cart on the footpath, Ponsonby-road, was defended by Mr. Theo. Cooper, who made an explanation of the case, which practically amounted to a plea of not guilty. After hearing the evidence, a fine of 5a and costs was imposed. Wandering Cattle and Horses. Antonia De Ruse, for depasturing a horse on unenclosed land, near Beresford-street, was lined 5s and costs. William Oliver, for a similar offence, was . fined 5a and costs. Thomas James, for allowing a cow to wander, was fined 5s and costs. George McUaslin, for depasturing two horses on unenclosed land, near Nixon and Burns Streets, was fined 20s and costs. Thomas Lake, for depasturing a horse on unenclosed land off Willow-street, was fined.

Assault.—Richard Walker was charged with assaulting Henry Rafton, by striking him on the face with his clenched fist. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. Speed appeared for the informant. Plaintiff and defendant are both furniture dealers in the City Market, and an ill feeling existed between the children of both. Alfred Tremainand the prosecutor gave evidence as to the assault. Agnes Motion corroborated their evidence. A man named Green was examined for the defence, and denied that any blow was struck ; and Alexander Watson, who tried to keep the plaintiff and defendant separate, also deposed that no blow was struck. They were both excited, and Rafton threatened to strike Walker if he did not stand back. The Bench found tho case proved, and imposed a fine of 20s and costs, and to be bound over to keep the peace for three months in his own bond of £20, and two sureties ot £10 caoh. ■■■.■■

Mud Throwing. — Albert Whitcombe, James Porteus, Robert Gray, Wm. Partington, and John Mcintosh were charged with throwing mud, to the damage of the shop of Charlea Crawford. Mr. Theophilus Cooper appeared for the defence, and pleaded not guilty. The prosecutor, a fruiterer, Pon-fconby-road, deposed that on the evening of the 2nd instant, at half-past eight o'clock, they made up mud-balls to throw at each other, and he saw throw some of theim on his verandab and shop, which had been newly painted by the landlord. He told them they were committing a- breach of the law. Whitcombe took Home of the mud off the varandah, and asked for a broom to clean up the place. Alex. McMillan waa called. He did not see any of the defendants throw mud on the house or verandah, but Crawford came out, kicking np an awful row, and they all went away. They were throwing mud at each other. Mr. Cooper submitted that there was no offence, for according to Mr. Crawford's own evidence his shop waß not damaged at all. , The case was dismissed, the boys being cautioned againßt such conduct in fature. Assault, and Robbery. —Albert Wright David Home, Michael Ryan, and William Small were again brought upon the charge of feloniously and violently assaulting John Carroll, putting him in bodily fear, and rob- i buig him of tho sum of £3 9s. Mr. Earl 1

appeared for the prisoners Home and Ryan. ■Detective • Walker produced a pian of the premises. Michael Gallagher, licensee of l Vu r j °' e '' S ave evidence at some length, Mid was' cross-examined by Mr. Earl, and by the prisoners Wright and .small. Detective Twohey also gave evidence, and Carroll was recalled and examined as to the place. Mr. Earl then addressed the Bench for his clients, contending, first, that Home was not identified at all, nor was there any evidence against Ryan, except that of the prosecutor, • wh6 was shown to be so intoxicated that tie had been locked up for drunkenness. He commented on the evidence given, especially that of Mr. Gallagher, which he- could corroborate by other testimony, and submitted that there was no case against his clients on which there was the slightest possibility that a jury would convict. The evidence was then read overtotheprisoners, who were then committed for trial. Four other charges of a similar nature were held over. -