POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VII, Issue 1972, 5 June 1876, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before R, C. BarsfcowEsq., R.M., and Cap tain Barton, J.P.)

THE LEPROUS DISTILMENT,

And please your Worship, one by one wo come, "Wild votaries of Bacchas &nd his rum, For he'a a rummy god we all confess, Ah, would that our blind homago were far lesa, Unless old Bacchus ail our fines will pay And lead poor drunkards in the better way.

FIVE SHILLINGS AN3> COSTS,

Martin Leatrange, a notorious drunkard, Mary Ann Burkett, James Reed, James Alexander, and Robert Thompson, were charged with drunkenness. James Reed said he waa not drunk, he was walking home about twelve o'clock to dinner, when the policeman came up to him and interefered with him. He waa not drunk, he had only four or five glasses. Constable Gamble deposed thai; prisoner was so drunk that he could scarcely stand, much less walk. Prisoner was fined 5s and 4g costs. TEN SHILLINGS AND COSTS.

John Dickson, George Barr, and William Hickster, were found guilty of the same offence.

UNDER THE BAGLE.

Thomas McCleary wag brought up under the Vagrant Act, he having been found at an unreasonable hour, and without, lawful excuse, in the Eagle Hotel, on the night of the 4th instant. Mr Joy said that he had been instructed by the boy's mother to appear for him, as he. waa under age., ;; •>i .. .(^

The accused was tearly sk feetln heJcKk aiid strongly built, which caused a smile Mr Joy said that the case did not nronerW come within t.he meaning of the Act a B V was not there witt.. any evil intent; he w merely there in company with a person of tHo opposite sex. c His Worship said h« was rather a bib. V cocious boy. . * ifica Mr Joy said, although twenty years of ace 1 he was an infant in the eye of the law Constable O'Eielly said he was ondnto near the Eagle Botel, when he saw a match struck and observed the prisoner coifiiDgonfe of the house ; he then took him into enstodv He aroused Mr Macdonald, who said that ha was not aware that prisoner was on his premises; he had heard something about females.

Eobert Madonald said that he closed his house at eleven o'clock on the evening i n question, tnat he knew the prisoner, bnt did not know that he was in his house after that* he saw him previously at his bar. '

To Mr Joy : He was not always at home • was not aware that the accused was keeping company with anyone in the Douse. The servant never told him that any courting was going on. He saw the ladder against the house in Durham-street which was used foi lighting tho lamp To his Worship : He put the ladder back in its place, and bolted the gate. , Mrs McOleary deposed that she begged of Mrs MacdoDald not to harbour her son in the house. He spent all his money there and then they wanted to get rid of him. ' Hej son was too innocent for the Macdonalds.

To Mr Joy : My son was frequently at the " Eagle." He was after a young woman who was continually after him—Mrs Maedonald'a sieter.

Mr Joy said he would call no further evidence, but thought it was not a case of an exceptional nature, and which could not prorjerly come under the Vagrant.Act. The Court said that, prifoner's going after the servant girl was no excuse for his being in the house at that unreasonable hour, but takiDg the circumstances into account, the sentence would only be forty-eight hourß i mprisonment. THE DISTUKBANCE IN AN AUCTION BOOM. Joseph Rogers was summoned for unlawfully 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 I him by the coat on the same day, and pulling him out of an auction room into Queen* Btreet. 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 such person' out, which was perfectly legal, but there must 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, Borne would be favoured while others would getthe cold shoulder. Mr Joy then proceeded to quote instances to show that the auctioneer could not order a person out nor refuse a bidder.

Joseph. Eogers deposed that he was a general dealer, and on Friday last he attended a publio sale on Messrs Grant and Morton's premises, for the purpose of purchasing goods which were sold on account of the shippers. He had often had bidß accepted; he was told to go out. As he was refused, he got another" person to buy for him. He was conducting himself in a proper manner. When the assault, was committed the sale was going on. He was standing near the auctioneer when Mr Morton ordered him out; he refused to go. Mr Morton then fetched a constable, and asked the constable to put. him out. He still refused to, go, and when; at the station, Mr Morton.declinedtomake a charge against him. Mr Morton teok* hold of him. Be told him to keep his handß off.

To Mr McCormick : He could not say when his last bid was accepted. He hid been put out of the auction room fourtimes. Ec could not say that .his bids had been accepted within the last two years. Mr Grant had a private spleent against him ; he wished to tell exactly the truth. Sergeant Elliott did not take him into custody. He said he would go put if he was given into custody, but otherwise be; would not go out. Mr Morton asked Ser-> geant Elliott to take him out, but he would not go. Mr Morton did not rush at him, bntj took him by the. coat; he took' hold of ; |lt 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 so at 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 ab Messrs Grant arid 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; 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 which was offensive, but he waa unlawfully on -the premises ; he was a trespasser. Mr Joy said' his olient had a right to be there as a bidder; but he wished for come 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 bis mart may be open for the public and for public business, if for private reasons he orders a person off his premises, such person can claim no right to remain, and can be put out without violence. Mr Joy argued on the other Bide with his ÜBual power, and said that the auctioneer did not come into Court as a landowner, or the lord of a castle, but as a creature of the statue, and if a man conducta himself, properly, his locus, standi there was unimpeachable,, and he had a perfect light to t>? there. Mr McCormick's' remarks about an Englishman's house being his castle did not apply to an auction mart, and in proof of his position he cited] several examples,, and saw that rogues,, vagabonds, and the lowest characters could not be refused admittance to an auction room which was established wr, the public good, and could not beturned oub until they committed themselves. _ , After some consideration-the Court ms'missed the case against Mr Morton, with C°Mr Joy said that he should certainly advise! Mr Rogers to take this case to a higbefCoflrs; as it was shewn that hia client bad'conau«tea, ; himself properly. ■ ,• ■; ' . , i^a Mr McOormick said the auctioneers naa not taken a bid of Mr Rogers for two years, and had distinctly told him that he should not bid. for a long time past, Mr■ Rogers 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 ro out. »s Grant and Morton had complaints Mr Rodaers, and good reason for acting as. Mr Rogers, with the help auctioneer, when heconsidered,that _a w<J was not a Una Me bd, he had a^perfeot right to ignore it; and^er j»»otjg»£. to bid or do business, might, be f™*?W* t the premises. tThe Court constod that Mr Rogers had no ionajide right there w

Jie had been told that his lid would not bo Mr Joy said that in the Becond case he ■would consent to a comiction of Is and costs, with leave of ajpeal, Mr Rogers having a perfect right to b« there, but against -the will of Messrs Grant And Morton. The defendant was accordingly fined la and COBtS. _____^