THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 289, 5 December 1900, Page 4

THIS DAY.

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

Obscene Language.—Evidence for the defence was called by Mr. Baume in the adjourned case against Allen Howard, a boy charged with using obscene language in the Albert Park on Sunday evening. Several of the accused's companions deposed that although bad language had certainly been used, the accused was not . the offender. His Worship said the evidence called to exculpate Howard had not led him to the conclusion that Sergeant Gordon had been mistaken. He found that accused had used obscene language. He was loath to send tho boy to gaol, as he appeared to bear a good character. On this occasion he would convict and discharge hi-n, with the warning that if found using such language again he would be imprisoned. ,

The Use of the Footpath.—Robert Arthur Bodle pleaded not guilty to a charge of loitering' in Queen-street, thereby obstructing' the thoroughfare. Sub-Inspector Wilson appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Hanna for the defence. Sergeant Gordon deposed to seeing defendant and five other men standing on the kerb at the corner of Queen-street and Vulcan Lane; Almost the whole of the Queen-street footpath was obstructed. As witness approached two of the men moved off. Witness asked defendant to leave. The gentleman defendant was speaking with turned away, and defendaiit, after a short pause, moved a step, and joined his friend again. Witness explained that.he wanted defendant to keep moving, so as not to obstruct the thoroughfare. Defendant said, "Can't a man speak to a friend?" Witness replied, "Not unless he is moving." As defendant made no attempt to move, witness 'took his address. As witness was leaving defendant called out, "You can have it as quick as you like." Cross-examined:. When witness came up there was a general move, with the exception of Mr. Bodle. Queen-street was crowded with, pass-ers-by at the time. There had' been many complaints • about the obstruction of the . footpaths. —• To His Worship: There Avas no one passing just at the time when witness spoke to defendant. His Worship: I fancy your case fails there. There must be inconvenience to passers-by proved. The offence is, "Loitering to the inconvenience of others after being requested to move on.."—The SubInspector said his evidence would not prove that.—His Worship said he found no fault with the police for bringing the case to court, but as there was no evidence of inconvenience he must dismiss the information. The defence had several witnesses iri support of their case, but there was no necessity to call them. \ Dismissed. —Adam Byers pleaded not; guilty to a charge of refusing to leave the Junction Hotel when requested to do so by the licensee, on account of disoi-derly conduct.—Sub-Jnspectof ; Wilson appeared for the prosecution,' and Mr Hanna for the defence. The evidence of disorderly conduct on defendant's part was that he held a man down on a seat in the hotel, and would not let him leave the place. The licensee would not say that de-,; f endant was drunk. —His Worship said the allegation of disorderly conduct had not been sustained, and the information was dismissed. His Worship commented on the action of the police in taking up the case, thus rendering the publican immune * from costs. It should, he said, have been a private prosecution.