POLICE COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

Auckland Star, Volume XXV, Issue 146, 20 June 1894, Page 5

POLICE COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before H. W. Northcroft, Esq., S.M.) Drunkenness.—A first offender pleaded guilty to being drunk, bub asked to be let oil, saying ho was going to the country tbat day. Mr Northcroft discharged the man with/a caution, ' Doa Registration Act. — Alfred A. White was charged with neglecting to register a dog.—Defendant did nob appear, -—Mr Goldio appeared for the Corporation and said the defendant had registered the dog after tbe summons had been sworn to. A tine of 5s and 7s costs was inflicted.— Graves Aickin was charged with a similar ofience. He produced a receipt, showing thab the dog was registered, bub it was shown that this was not done until afber the summons.had been issued. Defendant said he complained of the way the dog tax was collected, and added that the Court was used for the purpose. Ib was enbirely an oversight bhab bhe dog had nob been registered. Mr Northcrofb : How long have you owned the dog ? Defendant: Aboub two years. Mr Northcroft said there.^|9 no excuse for not registering tbe dog. The defendant ought to have had his dog registered as soon after the Ist of January as possible. Defendant said the owners of dogs were as a rule well-known ratepayers, and easy to get at, and could always be applied to personally for the tax. Mr Northcrofb said he did nob think the officiate ought to be attacked. The bad arduous duties to perform. Anyone that had to collect a direct tax was considered a scoundrel, and oven if be was the angel Gabriel be would nob escape from this designation. —Defendant said he thought tbe proceedings were arbitrary, and reiterated that no direct application had been made,, to him for the tax. A fine of 5s and 7s costs wero inflicted.—Wm. Beehan was also charged with having an unregistered dog on bis premises. Defendanb'said be did nob own the dog, lb belonged to his brother. He admitted the dog being about his premises.—A hue ot ba and 7s costs was imposed. Unclean Yard. — Wm. Beehan was charged with neglecting to clean a private yard in Grafton Road.—Mr Goldie said the place was now cleaned up to his satisfaction. —The case was dismissed, the defendant to pay lis coßts. Man and Wife.—Judgment was given in the case Tobias v. Tobias, in which tbe wife was charged with using insulting language towards her husband, and againsb whom be asked for sureties. The Magistrate said that there was no need for sureties, bub he would convict Mrs Tobias of the assault. He imposed a fine of 20s and £1 Ss costs, and allowed until eleven o'clock on Saturday next to pay the amount.