POLICE COURT-THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 81, 7 April 1902, Page 5

POLICE COURT-THIS DAY.

/Before Mr H. W. Brabant, S.M.)

Drunkenness.—For this offence one first offender was convicted and discharged. Henry S. Phipps was fined 10/ or 48 hours--in default for his second offence within six months, and aMry. Whittingham 20/ or seven days' in default for her third offencej and Mary Whittingham 20/ or seven days' in default for ,his fourth offence. Arthur McKeown was fined 20/ of seven days' in default for disorderly conduct while drunk in North-street.

Shipping Cases.—George Glanfield pleaded guilty to refusing: duty on board the s.s. Kumara, and as the chief officer said the man had since retiirned to duty, His Worship, convicted and discharged him. William Home pleaded not guilty to a similar charge, and his case was adjourned until to-morrow, to allow Home to produce medical evidence.

A Deserter.—Henry John Baker pleaded guilty to deserting from H.M.s. Ringarooma, and was ordered to be placed on board his ship. Discharged.—Hannah Newton, a Maori, woman, charged with.using insulting language and threatening behaviour towards Joseph Thorpe, was discharged, after being cautioned not to g-o near the Maori hostelry in Mechanics Bay. \ Breach of Infants' Life Protection Act.—Mary French was charged that on December 12th she did receive an infant into her house in consideration of money payment. Defendant admitted receiving the child, and receiving money from the mother, but said that she did not take the child in for i gain, and did not intend to keep the child. She did not know she was breaking the law. His Worship imposed a fine of 20/ and costs. Obscene Language.—Annie May Thomas, for whom Mr Martin appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of using obscene language, and was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon, the understanding being that she would leave the town. ' Dismissed Wltnout Prejudice.—J. H. Jones was charged with working a boiler for which no certificate was in force under the Inspection of Machinery Act. It appeared from the evidence that at the time the information was laid the certificate had been made out and sent to defendant, who had not received it, and who had not paid for it. His Worship dismissed the case without prejudice.