LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8414, 15 November 1890, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.— [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.] JgofiMENT Summonses. — Ebenezer Buchanan and John Buchanan y. F. W. Lipscombe, claim £7 5s Gd. An ardor was muds by consent, for £1 per week, to bo paid from the Ist November, and 10s per week afterwards. A. Hasell v. W. B. Morrison.—Claim £25, for damages through worrying of sheep by defendant's dog. Mr. Theo. Cooper for plaintiff, and Air. S. Hesrketh for defendant. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £10, costs £6 13s. POLICE COURT.— Friday. [Before Messrs. G. S. Graham and G. S. liissling.J Drunkenness.—One man, a first offender, was fined os and costs, or twenty-four hours' hard labour. Eliza McGinn was lined 10s and costs, or forty-eight hours, and John William Bible, who was still suffering from the effects of drink, was remanded until Monday next. A Nuisance. —Henry Eentley was charged with having committed a breach of the Auckland City by-la w« by allowing the contents of a privy, attached to tha house occupied by him in Vermont-street, to soak.so as to be offensive to the neighbourhood. Mr. G. Goldie, who conducted the prosecution, deposed that he visited the place, and found no box in the privy. He had never witnessed a more disgusting sight in his life. He had ordered the place to be seen to, but without effect. Th« City Inspector gave similar evidence. Morris Baker deposed that he let the house to the accused. Ho had received a notice from Mr. (joldie, and forwarded the same to Ben-tley, and taxi also written to Mr. Casey, giving him instructions to see to the place. The defendant said that the nuisance was in existence before he rented the place, and that he took the house undep the distinct agreement that the whole of the premises should be put in thorough repair. He had several times placed th« matter before Mr. Baker. Mr. Goldie said that in a similar case to this be had, on a previous occasion prosecuted the landlord, but had been informed by the magistrate that he had got the wrong man, aad thai the tenant was responsible. On this occasion, therefore, he had brought the tenant before the Court. The Bench considered that the party accused had not created the nuisance, it having been in existence before his time, and therefore dismissed the case as against the present defendant.