POLICE COURT.—THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2295, 13 July 1877, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—THIS DAY.

EFFECTS OF SHOUTING,

(Before E. C. Barstow, Esq., ILM.)

A mir of happy lushingtons are we. AVho love a drop when we return from s-.ui. Frank Smith and William Burton were severally charged with being drunk, and incapable of walking straight. They confessed, and were lined accordingly.

ELIZA RICE.

Now stood Eliza on the Barrack site; A shivering, tipsy daughter of the night.

Eliza Caroline Kice, Avife of Patna, was again brought up on a charge of drunkenness, this being her fifty-third known offence, according to the annals of the Court, edited by Sir Cunningham. The woman appeared in a wild state, having neither bonnet on her head, nor shoes on her feet.

As this was her lirst offence since leaving prison, she was fined 5s and costs.

VAGRANCY

A member of the well-known vagrant train His well-known face exhibited again.

Henry Sheldon was brought up under the Vagrant Act, with the usual terms affixed to his name.

Henry objected to rogue and vagabond, but confessed to being a wandering chicl.

The constable stated the circumstances. He found the prisoner in a shed, and when roused, lie made an attack upon him. Detective Jeffrey had known the prisoner six months, and considered him a man of unsound mind, or of very eccentric habits. Prisoner made a long address to the Court, and said he was certainly a wanderer, but he had not yet sunk even'to the position of a " loafer;"' was not entitled certainly U> the unenviable position of a rogue an« vagabond. His Worship found the prisoner guilty, but as he had not been convicted of ft»y other offence, he would not pass sentence upon him. Prisoner promised t» leave Auckland, and was discharged.

ALLEGED LARCENY. George Henry Bromfield, was charged with larceny of a, coat, and sundry article* of wearing apparel, value £10, the property of his cousin, A. W. Bromfield. Prisoner, a young man, said he had In* cousin's sanction to take the things.

On the application, of Sub - ' h:.«T>e«tor

Pardy, the case was remanded until Monday. * BREACH OF LICENSING ACT. Frederick Archard was charged with a brcivch of the Licensing Act, by selling alcoholic liquors at his house, the Eritomart Hotel, on Sunday, the Bth inst., to Henry Turner and Charles Strong.

Mr Arcliard said he would admit that lie was guilty, under peculiar circumstances. The men were seamen, and in the habit of coming regularly to his house for their meals; and without any disposition to break the law, the men were supplied with a drink. lie could only express bis regret, and ask for the leniency of the Court. Sub-Inspector Pardy said it was not a

bad case.

His Worship said that Mr Archard had candidly admitted Avhat he did do, which was also in his favour. Fined 20s and costs.

BREACH OF SHARECKOKEES' ACT

Charles Alexander was charged with unlawfully selling shares on the 4th July, in the Caledonian Gold Mining Company, he not being duly licensed as a sharebrok'er in accordance with the Act of 1871.

Mr Hesketh and Mr Lusk appeared for defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Mr J. B. Russell opened the case for the prosecution, and read several provisions of the Sharebrokers' Act to shew" that defendant had disposed of shares on commission for a person when he was not in a position legally to effect such a sale, and by so doing had rendered himself liable to a penalty of £20. He would tender the Gazette of January 1872, to shew that the Act was in force, and also to shew the appointment of the Hon. Daniel Pollen as the oth'cer of licenses.

George Dowden,constable k 'cwMr Alexander, saw him at the beginning of the present month with the object of selling some Caledonian shares. He asked Mr Alexander for his terms, he replied 2i per cent. commission ; he fold him there were no buyers in the market. Ke called the next 'lay, when lie said the price was £6 10, he said he would sell two at that figure. Mr Alexander said all right, come into my office, and we will make out the transfer. The clerk was about to make the transfer in the name of George Patrick Hogan, but he told him not to do so. Mr Alexander regarded witness as Mr Kogan. He took the blank transfer to Mr Hogan,who signed it.

To Mr Hesketh.: He signed the transfer, but the signature of the buyer was not in it. He meant to say, he saw Hogan sign it, he was a witness.

To Mr Russell: When he gave the transfer to Mr Alexander, lie was told to call about one o'clock for a cheque, which he filled in on the Bank of New Zealand. He cashed the cheque, and lie got a receipt, (produced.) The shares were sold for £5 10s each ; us yd was deducted from the amount. He did not know tiie name of the buyer until the next day, when lie learned that the buyer was Mr David Nathan.

To Mr Hesketh : He had not his uniform on. Ho appeared as a private gentleman. Ho was on the look out several days, but. did not immediately fall into the hands of Detective J eft'rey.

To his Worship :He vrent to the Exchange, for the double purpose of selling Hogan's shares, and selling the sharebroker. (Laughter.) Mr Hesketh : That was killing two birds with one stone.

Mr Charles Tothill, examined by MiTyler, produced the certificate of the Corporation of the Caledonian Gold Mining Company, and proved that the transfer of the two shares from Hogan to David Nathan had been effected.

Mr Hesketh contended that the sale of the shares had not been effected as recognised by law. The Provincial Act under which the information was laid, was not now in force, and lie would ask that the case might be dismissed. A long discussion ensued on various points of law.

Mr Hesketh said the sharebrokers had applied to Dr. Pollen for the proper license, but that gentleman referred them to Mr Robinson, of the Thames, whose powers were limited to the Thames.

Mr Tyler replied at some length, arguing that a sale had been effected, and although it might be a, hard case, and the transfer invalid, tiic Court would consider the offence apart from other matters, and that the sharobroker could have got a license at the Thames if he had applied,

Mr Hesketh said that Mr Alexander had committed no offence ; if any offence had been committed, it was by the person who signed the transfer. There was no power existing to grant the license.

His Worship said the certificate was void and unoperative. The Stamp Act says this is not a sale, but the parson liable for the penalty of £20 was Mr Hogan who signed the trahsfer. There was no sale.

The case was dismissed,

SKLTJXG WITHOUT A LICXSE.

Frank Blaydes and Caroline Blades, were charged with a breach oi: the Licensing Act, by selling alcoholic liquors to William Thomas Mason and Andrew Clarke, without beinj; duly licensed.

!\ft- Hesketh and Mr Dufaur pleaded not gruiltr. Sub-Inspector Pardy said it was a habit with hotel-keepers to put young women into bars, and for a certain consideration under his own license they were allowed to carry on that part of the business; it was time that the legality of Biich practices was investigated, and put a stop to.

Mr Hesketh argued that Mac hotel-keeper was the responsible person, and not the defendants. Sergeant Mai or Mason deposed that he -went to tli'e front bar of the Auckland hotel, and called for two glasses of hoc;- for himself nnd Sergeant Clark, for which he paid sixpence. That part of the hotel was licensed to MrJVTenzics. He was certain the liquor was beer. Mrs Blaydes supplied him. Eliza Rowley, widow of the late Charles Rowley, deposed that she came up from the Thames, and spoke to Mrs Blaydes about her late husband. She said she was not a barmaid, and appeared annoyed at bein.s? thus called, and sa.-'d if her position there was known, she should ;_et into trouble. ■ Mrs Gourdon uemembercd the death or Mr Rowley. Wont with Mrs Kowley to the Auckland Hotel, and heard Miss Cameron ask Mrs Blaydes about paying the gas account. She said to Mrs Blaydes, it is not usual for barmaids to pay the #as account, when she replied, I am not a barmaid ; I rent the place. William Wilkins, waiter, recently in the employ o£ Mrs Blaydes, knew nothing of Mr Memiies. He ". ras paid by Mrs Blades. Hr asked her to li-aye some change out, as he opened the bar in the morning1, when she said that Mr Monzies always took the money away wi'h him. John Menzics, of the Auckland Hotel, deposed that he supplied Mrs Blaydes with wines and liquor, and she returned full value for poods supplied, and paid £1 per day for the privilege. All beyond was for her benefit. She was liable to be discharged at any hour. He closed the o'lter door at night, and was the landlord of the whole property. He paid the gas account. Mr Hesketh addressed the Court at some length, when his Worship, having commented upon the evidence, looked through the Act, and could not sec that any such privilege was contemplated as let-tins off a nart ot a business in this war. He must hold Mr Blaydes guilty of a breach of the Act. Fined 2s Gd, costs £o 17s 61.

ATTACKING SOPHIA BURKE

Two sisters, named Mary and Kate McManus, were charged with violently attacking a lady, viz Sophia Burke, by knocking her down, puling rot her hair, and biting her lip and ear, on the 12th inst. The case was dismissed.