POLICE COURT.-This day.

Auckland Star, Volume XII, Issue 3384, 1 June 1881, Page 2

POLICE COURT.-This day.

(Before Messrs Hurst and McMillan Justices.) .",'" ; ■' INEBRIATES. **.;':.

Five persons pleaded guilty to drunkenness, and were dealt with-accordm* to law ~ ' POLLY BDRKK AGAIN. ° .' This irrepressible female was brought un under the Vacant Act, charged with being an habitual dniukard, no visible means etc.—Mary nodded, and was sent to prison for six mouths, this being her 41st conviction.

ALLEGED EMBEZZLEMENT. Thomas Fenton, arrested on warrant was arg __,wli'i en-*Jezzl»iß: the sum of 20s, on the 23th May, the properly of George Wilson, contractor.-Mr Tyler appeared for the prosecutiou,—The prisoner asked that the case might be adjourned, as he was taken by surprise, and only arrested last evening. He wished time to interview his solicitor in order to his defence.—Mr Tyler said defendant's request was a reasonable one.-The'case was then adjourned until Friday, prisoner being admitted to bail himself in £20, aud two others in £10 each! IT' ALLEGED ASSAULT. John S. Craig was charged with assault, ing Ann de Bar, at the Great Barrier, by sti iking her with a stick on the 3rd May.— Mr Tyler appeared for the defence, and Mr E. Cooper for complainant, in order to get a witness from the Great Barrier.—Mr Tyler said he was in a position to prove that the charge was wholly unfounded, and it would be monstrous to adjourn the case for another week, which would subject defendant to considerable loss. He would certaiuly press that the case should go 00. —Mr Cooper asked foi- a' warrant to bring up a witness named-Whittle, who saw tns assault, and it was no fault of the prosecutrix.—Mr Tyler said if it was postponed, he should certainly.ask for costs.—Tbe Court considered that unnecessary trouble should not bo indicted upon defendant.—Mr Tyler said defendant was prepared to defend his position, but if complainant would pay costs of adjournment defendant would have no objection.—Mr Cooper thought the complainant should not be asked to pay costs now, but that they should abide the result of the action.-— The case was finally adjourned until Friday we-.-k, on the uudeistaudiog that the costs of solicitor, and witnessess be-paid before the hearing, othetwise it will be dismissed. —Mr Tyler asked for bail, which was allowed.—Constable Jones deposed that he went to the Great Barrier for the purpose of serving Whittle with the summons, but after waiting and watching three days, he •was unable to see him. In fact he kept out of:, the way, and told several persons that he would not appear as a witness.—-Ann'de Bar depoied that Whittle saw the assault, and was an important witness.—The Bench declined to issue a warrant, as the summons had not been served. .] ; THE MYSTIC ROLL. •John Shiers, well known to the police, was charged with stealing a roll of flannel, value £3, on the 24th May.—Prisoner still pleaded not guilty ; and i reiterated the statement that he bought the flannel at auction, but forgot where ; and that he sold it reasonably to some person, unknown.— Mr Pardy had ho doubt but that prisoner had itolen the flannel,- but in the absence flf the owner, he was unable to prosecute the charge.—The prisbner whs then discharged, but was informed that if the owner could be found, he would stiU be liable to a rearrest. _••••*"■ . DOG . CO _I AES< . . A. : _umber of persons were summoned under the Dog Nuisance Act for neglecting to register in-accordance with tbe "provisions of the Act.—Mr Pardy, said that in several cases the persons summoned had immediately- procured' collars'.. He would not press for the full penalty in such cases. --Mr'• Laishley appeared ia two ' cases, and pleaded guilty, and considered that .they, might, tinder the circumstances stated, be very properly dismissed, and in this view the Court acquiesed.^Mr Eyre pleaded not guilty. He'had''no dog, Goo. Goldie, Registrar of dogs for the city, deposed that ou the 3rd of May he'was passing Mr Eyre's shop in Victoria-street, and saw. Mr Eyre's dog without a collar. Saw the dog on several occasions, On tho sth the dog had a collar on, but;witness discovered that it was a collar for a previous year.—To Mr Eyre: Had'no doubt but.it was your dog. It was sportiDg in' yonrshop. Saw it in your yard. Saw it capering in the front of your shop, and sleeping on the mat. Mr Eyre was requested to speak slower, a3 the Court was very bad for hearing. William Monro .gave evidence. Ho knew the little dog, and ■ had no doubt but he belonged to Mr Eyre.—To Mr Kyre : He knew you,'evidently ; he wagged his tail on seeing you by way of reedgnitiou.—William Syre" was sworn, ; and deposed that the dog was his property previously to the time stated, He had no wish to evade the tax, but tho, dog-, had been sold by auction by : Mr .Richard Arthur. (Receipt put in.) The dog had been a nuisance, and, rather than drown him, he sent him to the auction. —The case was dismissed. . v

' Similar charge's wcto brought against Daniel Quiun and Peter Hurley, who promised to, get collars at once, and w,ere dismissed. The case against Fred Bannister was adjourned for a week.