POLICE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 183, 3 August 1900, Page 8

POLICE COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before.Mr T. Hutchison, S.M.)

Drunkenness. —Nine first-offenders were convicted and discharged, and two others, who failed to appear, were fined 5/ each, tobe deducted from the bail-money.

Discharged.—BJizabeth Sneiler, charged with being an idle and disorderly person, with unsuiticient lawful means or support, was discharged.

A Licensing Case—"Not Transferable?" —David i«'owie, a steward on board the

s.s. Wairoa, was charged Wltn selling liquor on board the s.s. Wairoa at Matakohe without having a license to sell. The

Crown Prosecutor (Hon. J. A. Tole) appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Hugh Campbell for the defendant, who pleaded no: guilty. It was admitted that the defendant supplied liquor to passengers during the voyage from Holensvllle to Matakohe. Tin: steamer's license to sell liquor was in the mime of Captain George Hollars, but as Captain Seliars had been transferred to another steamor some months before, Mr Tole submitted that the license ee&.sed upon his removal, and that a new license In the name ol! the new master, Captain Grigs, should have been taken out. Mr Campbell, for the defence. contended that under the Act this was not necessary: he submitted that the license attached to tlie ship, In the name of the master for the time being. He pointed out that during the whole 19 years the Act. had been in force the practice now objected to had been eontlrfued unopposed. Defendant believed that he was acting within the law. being under the impression that the license was valid. An innocent agent, acting bona lide. was not guilty of a criminal cnTeiice. Mr Tole said'that could be mot by Inflicting a merely nominal line. His Worship reserved judgment till Wednesday next. Similar charges against George Seliars, the former master, and William Grigs, the present master of the s.s. Wairou, were withdrawn by Mr Tole. Dismissed.—Thomas Moorehead, ealiclrlver, pleaded not guilty lo a charge of standing his vehicle for hire at a place other than the appointed stand. Air Baume. for the defendant, stated that tho cab was engaged at the time, and that consequently it was not "standing for hire." Mis Worship uphold the contention and dismissed the case, fie added thai there might have been a ease of obstructing tho thoroughfare, but In any case the fault lay With the people who kept the cab waiting.

A Question of Authority?—J. Ilerbetson a greaser on the s.s. Pakeha, was charged with having wilfully disobeyed the lawful command of his superior officer during the voyage from Hobart to Auckland. Capt. T. Prosser, master of the vessel, appeared for the prosecution, and -Mr J. U Lundon for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. It was stated in evidence that the defendant refused to obey an order in connection with the, working of the vessel, and also refused to go aft when summoned by the captain. When the'latter wont forward to question him. the defendant said he would start work when he thought (it. For the defence it was urged that defendant was supposed to work 4 hours and have H hours off, and that he could not bo called on to work during the latter period unless a clause to that, offpcet, allowing for overtime pay, was inserted in the articles, which in the. present case had not been done. Mis Worship said that was a, question which the Court need not decide. He had simply to pay whether defendant disobeyed a lawful command. Any command in relation to the working of the ship was a lawful command. The articles did not restrict in any way the generality of the captain's power In that particular, As to the propriety of asking a man to do work which ho supposed ho ought, not to do, that was a matter for the shipping master or Collector of Customs to settle. In regard to the other point, one who, understanding

an order deliberately disobeyed it, was guilty of wilful disobedience. Tn view, however, of the good character borne by the defendant, uml as the case .did not appear to be a bad one, ho would simply fine the defendant £1 and costs.

The Court then rose,