POLICE COURT.-Yesterday.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VII, Issue 1921, 17 December 1874, Page 3

POLICE COURT.-Yesterday.

(More AV. I'r.JSEK, Esq., K.JI.) Fighting in a Public Plj.ce.—Edwd. Verdon v'ixon was charged that he did, on the 15th inst., commit a breach of the peacs by fighting in a public place, to wit, Pollen-street, Shortland.—Mr Dodd, for defendant, pleaded not guilty.—Constable Furlong deponed that he was on duty last night iu Pollen-street. lie saw defendant strike a man, and knock him into the water-table. I apprehended him Cross-examined : I could not say who the man who Has struck was. I heard since it was Charles h'owley. I don't know why he struck him. They were both on the footpath. He-examined : I saw them go into Butt's 10 minutes before. They wont iu together. 1 could not say ho.-, long they were staudiug together before the man was struck. I heard no language puss between them. Mr Dodd contended that there was uo' fight, only an assault,— Mr Sullen said that the defendant was charged with a breach of the peace. There was no information laid at all. It was only place I iu that way on life charge sheet.-For the defence, Thomas Manning deposed that he saw the defendant and C. Eo'.vley yesterday evening, He saw Eowley take oil' his coal-, and call Dixon everything but a gentleman. Dixon said nothing. Kowley called him a liar, Ac. Mr Wilson put Powley out. Kowley appeared to be drunk, but Dixou was not so, apparently. Oross-examiued: This was in Mackay-street. There was no assault'or breach of the peace then committed. — Thomas Wilson deposed that Dixon and Eowley were at tho Prince Arthur Hotel. Kowley abused Dixon, and witness had to vy.at him. Eowley called Dixon a d- loater,and took off his coat. Dixon did not give any provocation in witness's hearing. They left the house about the same time, but by different doors. -Joshua Hartley was- also examined. He heard Rowley call Dixon a b— in the Prince Arthur Hotel, and challenge him to fight. 'J homas Godkin was called, but did not appear.—Mr Dodd said that he was instructed that Rowley had followed the defendaufcabout, and grossly insulted him.—His Worship ordered defeudant to become bound in his own recognizances in the sum of £10 to keep the peace for three mouths, and pay the costs. •

Vaccination Oaßes. — Frederick. A. Pulleiae was charged that he. being the father of Francis Burmester Pulleine, neglected to procure the vaccinating of ( the said child, that the said child was not duly taken for inspection, that certificate of successful vacciuation had not been duly received, contrary to the profusions of the Public Health Act, 1872. The information was laid by. Edward H. Power, Registration Officer. Mr Power withdrew the information.—There was a ' similar charge against Alexander Dewar, which was also withdrawn. -y— William Borry was charged in a similar manner in respect of Arthur Jamas Berry. Mr Macdonald, for the defendant, said that there were three offences disclosed in the information contrary to the Justice of the Peace Act.—His Worship said that it was evident that it was thought perhaps that it led up to the same offence. The information could be amended by striking out the two first charges.—Mr Macdonald said that it was so utterly bad that it could not be amended.—Mr Power called attention to the 108 th section of the Act in support of the made in which the information was laid. -M. r Macdonad quoted the 7th section of the Justice of tbo Peace Act, and showed that the Oourt could not have jurisdiction upon sucii information, as it was bad, disclosing more than one offence. The Court could not deal with it at all to amend it or otherwise. —His Worship drew counsel's attention to tho 26th section of the fustico of the Peace Act, which gave Ihe Court power to adjourn cases to amend information.—Mr Macdonald said, that that section bore out its objoctiou, as the present information was not one which could be dealt with by his Worship or in which he could adjudicate.—His Worship said that he did not want the information to fall through because of any technicalities. It was evident that Mr Power wished to spread his net as far as possible. It would be better to withdraw the information altogether, and charge Mr Berry newly with the latter portion, " that the certificate of successful vaccination had not been received." It was a niis:alte and contrary to law to have more than one offence disclosed in oue information. It was finally agreed that they should proceed .with this charge under the 109ih clause of the Act, as Mr Berry was present.—After some argument, Mr Macdonald said that they •wore taken by surprise. He had a certificate in his pocket.—Mr Berry said that he had told Mr Power, months ago, that the child had been vaccinated by Dr Fox, who had sinco gone to England. That certificate had to be obtained from Dr Payne.—His Worship directed the certificate to be handed to Mr Power and the case struck out. It was not necessary for Mr Power to be so strict in the duties of his office. —— Charles V\ illiam Gentry was charged in the same manner.— Mr Power elected to proceed on the last clause. —Mr Macdonald, for the defendant. — Mr Power said that he had not received the certificate.—His Worship said that was no offence. It was neglecting to transmit which constituted the' offence.-Mr Macdonald asked whether they were to answer for the same information.—His Worship said an information could be drawn out in a few words which would cover the whole offence.—Edward Henry Power deposed that he was Vaccination Inspector and I'egistrar. He gave a notice to defendant in July by post. He put the entry iu evidence, also tho certificate of birth. He sent the .notice by post.—His Worship said that the "Act required that the notice should be hauded to him. The notice by post was no good, but the notice did not affect the case.—Mr Power said he had not received the certificate, and came to the conclusion that it had not been transmitted. He came to the conclusion that tho child had not been vac-, cinatod at all.-Mr Macdonald contended that it had not been shown that the defendant had ever received the certificate, how then could he be punished for notj transmitting it. He understood' that the defendant had never received the! certificate—The defendant was examined: He resided at present in tho bushat the back of Shortlaud Ho had no , in respect of his daughter Mary Martha, ever received any certificate ;at all.—Hia Worship wished to put,the question in such a way as to whether the child had been vaccinated at all.—Mr Macdonald said it was not necessary for him to answer that question, The answer might expose him to. penalties.—His Worship said that the provisions of this Act wera of such public importance that he thong t Uie (Jesisirawienural ought to have authorised, the employment of cquu-

sel. Hp would strike- out the whole tiling and yet charge Hie defendant with neglecting lo have the child vaccinated.— ;Y! r Macdonald said that they were not prepared to answer that charga in a moment. Defendant' was then formally charged with neglecting to have his child iriary Manha vaccinated.—Mr Macdonald at 7 * mitted that the child had not been vaccinated. The child was.; born in the bush, and the wife and child were'residing iu Kirikiri, the husband being away.—Defendant said it was very inconvenient to bring a woman or child in from where he re-ided.—Mr Power said the woman and child had been residing in town-until lately. -Defendant- - said lhafr it was ten months ago- since ..he left town, prior to that the child was not well. —Mr Mac lonald contended that the offence was not a continual one. It was complete when the child was six months old, and proceedings ought then have been taken. Besides, the notice had n4 been handed to the defendant as required. -Mr Power referred to the 115 th section to show that there was no necessity at all for his proving the notice. •Mr Macdonald said that it was essential that the notice should be given, and if they proved that it had never been received it would, he thought, be an answer. The notice was.an essential ingrcdiuit, although the burden of proof was taken off the prosecution.— His Worship said that he would throw all possible opposition in the way of his getting out on a technicality, and would lake it for granted that the notice was given. —Mr Macdonald said that he could prove that the notice had never been given. -His Worship asked how. Mr Macdonald said that he would prove it by the defendant. His Worship refused to receive his evidence, as the charge was laid in an information.—Mr Macdonald said that it was not an information at all, but a complaint, upon, which the defendant was entitled to give evidence.-His Worship ruled that it was an information. — After some further argum*nt, his Worship said that he. would adjourn the case for a week; something bad jus come to his recollection which made him believe that defendant had received the notice. -Jt was finally agreed to take the adjournment until Saturday. — John Hendy was simihrly charged in respect of his son John Hendy. He handed in a certificate dated llth of December. He said he thought Dr Lethbridge would have handed in the certificate He paid him 6s for the vaccination.—His Worship said thatDrLethbridge, being public vaccinator, was liable. "Why did not Mr Power lay an information against Dr Lethbridge. He would adjourn this case until the 14th of January, and meanwhile test the question with Dr Lethbridge. He would impound the certificate.—There was a similar charge against John Brown with respect to his son John Joseph Brown.-Defendant handed in a certificate by Dr Lethbridge that the child had been vaccinated several years ago.—i he case was adjourned, and the. certificate impounded.—At this stage Mr Macdonald acknowledged that the notice in Gentry's case had been receivod about two months ago, and he would plead guilty instead of having the cuso adjourned.—His Worship inflicted a fine of 5s and costs.—Similar charges Isaac Rhodes Cooper, Joseph Cornwall Williams, Henry Dalton,. Valentine Savage George Hulme, Charles Joynt, Joshua Walter Adlnm, and Ihomas' Hammond, were withdrawn.