POLICE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 159, 7 July 1899, Page 5

POLICE COURT.

THIS DAY,

(Ejefore Mr Hutchison, S.M.)

Drunkenness. —Three first offenders were discharged with a caution. — John McDermott was fined,lo/, or 48 hours, and a like fine was inflicted on Robert Condron on each of two usingl obscene language.

drunk, and wilful damage to property.

Language.—David McGurk was sentenced to 7 days' hard labour for using obscene language.

Infant Life Protection.—Samuel A. Nelmes was charged under the Infants' Life Protection Act with maintaining1 more children than he was licensed to keep at his house, which was registered under the Act.—Mr Parr appeared for the defence, pleading, not guilty.—The evidence showed that the defendant was keeping four children while his license only allowed him to maintain three. —A fine of 40/ was inflicted, with costs 7/. and the license was cancelled, as required by the Act.

School Attendance,Act.—The following parents were fined for neglecting to send their children to school the proper number of times per week. Mr Small, Truant Officer, prosecuted in each case: Robert Notton, fined 8/; William White 10/; Win. Price 12/; John Clarke 8/; Thos. R. Cantell 10/.

Charge Against a Tram Conductor. —A youth named Charles Crowhurst pleaded not guilty to a charge of stealing 6/11$ the property of the Auckland Tramway Co. It appears accused was engaged as a special conductor for one of the trains to football last Saturday, and was instructed to hand over his bag and cash to the foreman at the Epsom terminus (Mr Potter) at the end of the day. The bag Avas left in the office at Epsom, where it was found later in the evening by the foreman, who on checking the .tickets found there was a shortage of 6/11$ in the cash. Accused was to be paid for the afternoon's work on applying- at the Queen-st. office, but so far he had made no application for the amount (half-a-crown). His Worship said it was clear that the defendant was guilty of a breach of duty in not seeing that his bag was delivered personally to the foreman; but a breach of duty was not proof of theft. The evidence seemed to indicate that the lad pitched the bag into the office after finishing xip, and the shortage might be accounted for in some other way. Accused would be discharged.