POLICE COURT—THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 309, 31 December 1891, Page 5

POLICE COURT—THIS DAY.

(Before Mr TL W. Bishop, P..M.)

Drun(cents'kss. —John Casey and George Lavvson were each fined 10a and costs, or 48 hours' gaol in default, for drunkenness in a public placo. Arson.—Ah Bing wa3 charged with having on the 30th inst. wilfully set fire to a building in Upper Queen-street, owned by Margaret; (Jregory.—Mr S. Heskceh appeared for the accrued, and asked for a remand until Friday next, which was granted, bail being enlarged. Beeaofi of the-Pkace. — William Burtenphaw and David Ileaiey were charged with insulting behaviour and fighting in Welle.'-lev-street, — A plea of rsoC guilty was entered.—Evidence was given by Edward Lynch and James Ryan to the effect that the two men were smuggling in bho street and endeavouring to strike each other.— Thomas M'uboiV'arid Sergeant Donovan also gave evidence.—The 11. M. dismissed the case against Biirtenshaw, remarking that he had°evidently been more sinned against than sinning, and fined the other man 10s and costs, or in default 43 hours' imprisonment with hard labo.ur.

SmrpiKO and Seamen's Act.—Andrew McLeod was charged on reiuaiid with a breach of the Shipping and Seamen's Act, 1877, by neglecting to pay to Thomas J. Blackweil the sum- of. £47, duo a? wages. Mr J. P. Campbell appeared for the complainant, and Mr S.". Heskefch for the defendant-.. Capfc. Bluekwell deposed that he was formerly master of the schooner Opotiki, find the Hum of £39 ' w.as due to him fi3 wages by McLeod, managing , owner of the vessel, independent of £& 17.-, which he had to pay one r.f the crew of tho who sued witness for ivapes, in the stoticl of the owners. Be produced accounts to prove hi? claim.—The 3.1.M. made an order for the complainant, and ordered that t}i°sum of £47 173 Id should be paid by the defendant on the 2nd prox., failing which, payment would be recovered by distress on tho vessel.

Maintenance Cask. —Thomas Elliott was chaged with having failed to provide adequate means of support for his wife, Elizabeth, and. a child under the age of M years. —The defendant pleaded nob guilty.— Elizabeth Eiliott deposed that her husband had bought nothing but bread for her. for the" last) three months. She had nob lived on good terms with her husband lately, and ho had been in the habib of ppen ling his money in drink. —The defendant explained that ho had incurred seriou3 pecuniary losses through his expense,? in connection with a pottery patent, at which he was still employed. His furniture had been sold up. lie had provided food for his wife and children, and had supported his family as farag lie wasablc. — Elliott , * son was ale.o called. Ho stated tJiat hi.v mother always could have enough to eat.—-His Worship said that it was an unhappy state of thing?, but, Mrs Elliott had "not brought, pufiicient evidence to justify him in making an ordfT. He would give her a chance to bring evidence by adjourning the case till tho 9th of Jar.vary