POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VII, Issue 1971, 3 June 1876, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before R. C. BarstowEsq., R.M., and Captain Burton, J.P.) THE LEPROUS DISTILM.ENT. And please your Worship, one by one we come, Wild votaries of Bacchus and his.ram, : ; For he's a rummy god wa all confess, Ah. would that our blind homage were far less, TJnles3 old Bacchus all our fines will pay And lead poor drunkards in the better way. FIVE SHILLINGS AND COSTS. Martin Leatrange, a notorious drunkard, Mary Ann Btirkett, James Reed, James Alexander, and Robert Thompson, were charged with drunkenness, - ; James Reed said he was not drunk, he was walking home about twelve o'clock to dinner, when the' policeman came up to him and interfered with him. He was not drunk, he had only four or five glasses. Constable Gamble deposed that prisoner was so drunk that he could scarcely stand, much less walk. Prisoner wao fined 5s and 4s costs. TEN SHILLINGS AND COSTS. John Dickson, George Barr, and William Hickster, were found guilty of the same offence. UNDER THE EAGLE. Thomas McCleary was brought up under the Vagrant Act, he haying been found at an unreasonable hour, and. without lawful excuse, in the Eagle Hotel, on the eight of the 4th instant. , . , Mr Joy said that he had been instructed by the boy's mother to appear for him, aa he waa under age.

The accused was nearly six feet in heielik and strongly built, which caused & smile Mr Joy said that the case did not prooeriw come withifi the meaning of the Act, as he was not there with any evil intent ; h. e w&ft merely there in cowpsray with a person of til opposite sex. His Worship Baid he was rather a pre. cocious boy.

Mr Joy said, although twenty years of ace he was an infant in the eye of the W. ! Constable O'Eielly Baid he was o»dutv> near the Eagle Hotel, when he Baw a matefe struck and observed the prisoner coming cafe of the house ; he then took him into custody He aroused Mr Macdonald, who said that he wa» not aware that prisoner was on hig premises ; he had heard something about females.

itobert Madonald said that he closed hit house at elevetf o'clock on the evening i tt question, that he ktiew^ the prisoner, but di<J not know that he was in his house after that* he saw him previously at his li>ar. *

To Mr Joy : He was not always at home • was not aware that the accused was keeping, company with anyone in the house. The servant never told him that any courting was going on. He saw the ladder against lh& house in Durham-street' which was used for lighting the lamp To his Worship : He put the ladder back in its place, and bolted the gaite.

Mrs McOleary deposed thst she begged ol Mrs Macdctaald not to harbour her son in the house. He spent all his money there, and then they wanted to get rid of him. Her son was too innocent for the Macdonalda.

To Mr Joy : My son was frequently at the " Eagle." He was after a young woman who was continually after him—Mrs Macdonald'a sister. Mr Joy paid he would call no further evidence, hilt thought it was cot a case of an exceptional naitfie, and which could nob properly come unciftr the Vagrant Act. The Court said theft prisoner's going after' the servant girl was no excuse for Mb being in the house at that unreasonable hour, but taking the circumstances into account, the sentence would only be forty-sight hours i mprisonment. THE DISTURBANCE IN AN AUCTION BOOM. Joseph Rogers was summoned forunlawfully assaulting James Morton on the 2nd instant by seizing him by the neck with both hands ; and James Morton was summoned for assaulting Joseph Rogers, by catching him by the coat on the isnme day, and pulling him out: of an auction room into Queenstreet.

Mr McCormick appeared for Mr Morton,. and Mr Joy L.L.8., for Mr Rogers. Mr McCormick contested that no extra force was used by Mr Morton ; but after a, person was once ordered to leave the premises and would not go out, he becomes a trespasser, and the owner can put sneh person out, which was perfectly legal, but there muafc be no beating in the case. Mr Joy said that this was a case of immense importance to the auctioneers of the city, and if this sort of thing was permitted, some would be favoured while others would get the cold shoulder. Mr Joy then proceeded to quote instances to show that the auctioneer could not order a'^ierson out nor refnsea bidder. W Joßepb. Rogers deposed that he was a general dealer.and oajFriday last he attended a publio sale on Mesks Grant and Morton's premises, for the purpose of purchasing goods which were sold on account of the shippers. He had often had bids accepted; hewaj told to go out. As he vas^refueed, he got another person to buy for him.:. He was conducting himself in a proper mariner. JWhen the assault was committed the sale was going on. He was standing near the auctioneer when Mr Morton ordered him ou|f;' ; he , refused to go. Mr Morton then fetched a/ constable, and asked the constable to ,put him oat. He still refused to go, and* whsn at the station, Mr Morton declined to make a charge against 'him. Mr Morton tuok hold of him. Be told him to keep Ma hands off. To Mr McCormick: He could not say when his last bid was accepted. He h&d been put out of the auction room four times. He could not Bay that ..his bids had been accepted within the last two years. Mr Grant had a private spleen against him ; lie wished to tell exaotly the truth. Sergeant Elliott did not take him into custody. He said he would go out if he was given into custody, but otherwise he would Dot go out. Mr Morton asked, Sergeant Elliott to take him out, but he would not go. Mr Morton did not rush at him, but took him by the coat; he took hold of Mr Morton, but did not seize him by the throat. He considered he had a right to be there; it was his living, and if he was served Boat all the auction rooms he should be deprived of his means of support. He believed that if he had went out Mr Morton would not have'put his hands upon him. To Mr Joy : In order to avoid unpleasant* ness he got another person to bid for him, but it was necessary for him to be present to see that too much was not given. Daniel Macpherson deposed that he was a draper, and was at Messrs Grant and Morton's sale. The room was full of people; saw Mr Rogers there. There was a commotion in the room. A constable was sent for, and Mr Rogers was desired to leave the room j he refused, when Mr Morton took hold of Mr Rogers' coat, and tried to pull him towards the door. Did not see that Rogers gave any occasion for being put out. _ Mr McCormick said he would admit that Rogers did nothing at that time whioh was offensive, but he was unlawfully on the premises ; he was a trespasser. ■ Mr Joy said his olient had a right to be there as a bidder j but he wished for some principle to guide them for the future. , Mr McCormick argued at great length to shew that every " man's house is his castle, and, although his mart may be open for the public and for public business, if for private reasons he orders a parson off his premises such person can claim no right to remain, and can be put out without violence. • # Mr Joy argued on the other side with his usual power, and said that the auctioneer did not come into Court as a landowner, or the lord of a castle, but aa a creature of tne statue, and if a man conducts himseli properly, his locus standi there was unimpeachable, and he had a perfect light to be there. Mr McCormick'a remarks about an Englishman's house being his caßtle diono* apply to an auction mart, and in proof of W« position be cited! several examples, and saia that rogues, vagabonds, and the lowest characters could not be refused admittance to an auction room which was established tor the publio good, and could not be turned out until they committed themselves. _ " After some' consideration the Court : <US" '■ missed the casa against Mr Morton, wita

Mr Joy said that he should certainly advise Mr Rogers to take this case to a higher Court as it was shewn that hi ß client had conduoted himself properly. , ... "> i.i'a\ Mr McUormick said the auctioneers haa not taken a bid of Mr Rogere for.two.yew* and had distinctly told him that he should not bid. .For a long time past, Mr ilogere had been in the habit of attending the saleroom of Messrs Grant and Morton, and had been often told that his bid.would not be taken, and that every time he appeared m the auction room, one or other of them would ask him quietly to go out. Messrs Grant and Morton had complaint I M«M* Mr Rodgers, and good reason for acting M they had done. , . ■._ ... i,ain Mr Joy said that Mr Rogers, with the help of friends, intended to appeal. , The Court said that in its view the auctioneer, when he considered that; adiu was not abona Me bid, he had g right to ignore it; and P"«"°*HKSI to bid or do busineßS, .night be .ojJJJ^ the premises. fcThe Court consul«jW Mr Rogers had no lonajide right there »

_c had been told that his bid would not lo "lakei' ~ ... . ',_ . /; Mr|Jpy v saia that m the second case he *"' -would consent" to a conviction' of Is and costs, with leave of appeal, Mr Rogers having a perfect right to be there, but against the will of Messrs Grant and Morton. The defendant was accordingly fined Is and costs,