POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume V, Issue 1498, 28 November 1874, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., R.M.)

UNFORTUNATE JAMES.

James McDonald was charged with being in a state of moonyism last evening in Wei-lesley-street. Not being in a capable condition he was taken by the arm by Constable O'Reilly, who introduced him to a lodging on the "cold, cold ground" in the home for wanderers in High-street, where he was duly fed upon bread and water. Prisoner said he was guilty, for he was sure he could not walk. This being his third offence, he was fined 203. and costs.

A SWEET CAS!?,

George Hesford, David Kelly, and Charles Hughes, on remand, were again brought up on a charge of stealing two bags of sugar, on the Ist instant, value £3 Gs, the property of Joseph '^tacev, of Auckland. Sergeant-M^jor Pardy said that as Mr Stacey was not quite clear upon the matter, he wished, with his Worship's permission, to withdraw the charge. Withdrawn accordingly. The prisoners were discharged.

MY POOR, Dof> "?rN TAP."

Anne Lynch was summoned under tie Dog .Nuisance Act of 1854, sec. 14, with being the owner of a terrible dog, " Snap," which dog did, on the 3rd inst., attack and bite Mary Jane Alexander, whereby her life Was endangered. Mrs Lynch here burs_t into tears, and commenced to say that "Snap " was not her 1 dog ; and heaven knows she could not tall . what had become of the blessed dog. Your Worship, I'm a woman of honor, and would not tell your Worship a lie ; no, indeed I would not Honor bright sir, I don't mow. what the divil'sbecome of "Snap." Letme off your Worship, and I'll kill all the dogs that come near me. Sergeant-Major Pardy stated that the dog I bit the person of Mary Jane Alexander, mM Wyndham-street, on the 3rd inst. Mrs Lynch here began to shed tears copi-i 1 ously, and implored his Worship to have j mercy upon her, the dog was not hers. m His Worship : Mulville. take Mrs Lynch I out of court, she will be better presently. i Ihe constable then led Mrs Lynch out ofl court, weeping bitterly, and declaring that I " Snap " was now as dead as a door naiL Wa The case was then allowed to stand over I for a few days to ascertain if " Snap" had ij really departed this life, and if so the charge | against Mrs Lynch would be withdrawn.

A DISSATISFIED APPRENTICE,

William L. Roth appeared in answerto a J summons charging him with failingto sap- I ply proper food and lodging to his apprentice, Edward McManus. : Mr James Russell for complainant, and

Mr Joy for the defence. "- Edward McManus deposed that he only had one sheet to his bed, and his bed clothes had not been washed for a long time. He was also obliged to make his own bed which was : a hard case. His sheets were also holy, and interfered with the liberty of his toes.! His 1 bedding had lately improved. He had to sweep out the room. To Mr Joy : You said the other day that your food was bad. Why have you dropped that charge to-day ? . . , fe Complainant: Because my principal witness, McLean, is away. - Mr Russell said that he advised his client to drop that charge. „ , , . To Mr Joy : Mr Roth called him a young dog, which was not the thing. He did want to be free, and no wonder. He did not think it worth while to bring a charge against Mr Roth for calling him a dog. He gave notice for the defendant to produce the blanket in Court. His Worship: The Court has no wish to 86 Alexander McLean here stepped into court, and deposed that Mr Roth threatened to lock him up if he came forward to-day. He deposed that he was a fellow-sleeper wito McManus; and was allowed one sheet, .but he could not say how often it was washed. He was allowed two blankets, a sheet, ana counterpane. Their mattresses had recently been re-stuffed. He slept very comfortably now at night. To Mr Joy : He was very comfortable now he slept warm and cosy. His Worship : If you have only sheet, on which side do you wear it j sometimes on one side, and sometimes on the other, 1 SU Witness : I wear it under me your Wor-

Mr Joy addressed the court at some length on the paltry nature of the charge, and to the fact that the most serious of the charges that of insufficient food had been dropped. Mr Roth, the defendant, deposed that the food he provided for his family was of the best quality, and his apprentices sat down to the same table, and shared the same food; he made no distinction. The statement about the things not being changed often was false. The sheets were changed every fortnight. , . - _ The blanket complained of was never on the boys bed. They had never complained of their bedding. To Mr Russell: He did not tell McLean that he would lock him up if he attempted to go. to court; but if he would not go on an errand he would lock him up : he did not intimidate him- . , _3 « Mrs Roth deposed that the boys had a change of linen every fortnight; the blank M was not in the state represented by the Mr Russell wished te have the blanket produced in court. , His Worship : I really have no desire to Mrßoth fetched the blanket in and spread it before the court. Mrs Roth deposed that the.blanket m never on the boys' bed ; she had been like a mother to the boys, and they had rebelled agjimes hMcEllwain and George Barker, two other apprentices, deposed that the bed things were changed once a jg they had not heard of any grumbling onjp»part of MpManus and McLean. Mr Joy said he had other witnesses, but thought it was not necessary to call them. | Hia Worship said the weight of evidence, was certainly against complainant, cautioned him not to bring f "gjfg^' his master which he could ™t ButatobJ^ he was intelligent, and he would advise^m to go back to his master, and S^^M services willingly. The case was then d« missed. This was all the business.