Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

POLICE COURT.

(Before Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M.)'

THE DRUNKARDS.

Two first offenders were fined 5/, Frederick Sargent 10/ (or 48 hours), Sara Nixon £1. Frank Diamond, for being drunk and breaking a prohibition order, was fined £1. Wm. Betts, an elderly man, who stated that he was 61 years of age, and had been all over the East Indies. China and Japan, was up for drunkenness, breach of a prohibition order and having no means of support. He made a rambling statement about j doing work for fishmongers for meals and I a few shillings, and added that since he l had walked 254 miles to Napier his feet j had become played out, so that he could i not take the road. The Magistrate conj victed and sentenced him to two months' j imprisonment, to give him a chance to i get the drink out of his system. LOST BOT/LDOG AND A REWARD The loss of a bulldog on 20th June, Iby \V. li. Ingram, resulted in Roland I James Sharrock appearing on a charge of having stolon tiie dog, which was valued at £IS. The owner stated that Ihe lost the dog in Avon-street on that date, and that he advertised the loss, offering rewards. On 9th July a man j called Cunningham told him he thought !he knew where the dog was, and took him to Sharrock's house, where he was introduced us a dog fancier. He wae shown another bulldog, and also his own, which Sharrock said he had bought at Huntly. Witness said that the dog was his, and Sharrock then told him he had found it at Kingsland. Witness I gave Cunningham £5, the amount advertised as a reward for the recovery of the dog. Ilerber6 Cunningham explained that he knew Sharrock, and as j the result of his having a bulldog, and I losing it, he became aware that Ingrain's i dog was at Sharrock's, and also made ; the acquaintance of Ingram. He took the I latter to Sharrock's house where a constable accompanied them, though at the time he did not think then that the dog had been stolen by Sharrock. In answer to Mr. Hackett (for accused), witness explained that he had met a constable who was a member of the same club as himself, and they got talking about 'the matter, which accounted for a constable going out with him and Ingram, the latter having in the first place gone to the police when he lost his dog. It was a description of the dog, a very dark brindle, as a "black" bulldog that made him think it was Ingram's. If he had been absolutely certain the dog was Ingram's he would have told , Sharrock, so that the latter could get the reward. The evidence for the defence was that accused found the dog at Kingsland on 24th June, when it followed him home. He had to keep the dog tied up to ffeep it from fighting wrtb his own bulldog. There was no collar or other means of identification on the dog, and accused watched the "Star" (which ho took) for an advertisement of reward. No advertisement appeared, and ne intended advertising it himself, and selling it if nobody turned up. He told his employer, bis fellow-employees, and others of the find, and also took the dog out walking loose several times. Ingram was not. introduced to him 0.3 a fancier, but Cunningham asked where the dog came from, and witness said it was one of the Huntly breed. His^ reason for the remark was that he 'was a bit doubtful about Cunningham, and he wished to make sure that nobody but the owner should get the dog. When the dog answered at once to Ingrain, witness knew he was the owner.

After Mr. JTaekett had addresserj l the Court on the law relating to larceny in the matter of found good's, liis Worship intimated that his decision would stand over till Friday morning. BREACH OF COMPANIES ACT. An information was lodged against the Pukeruru Sawmilling Limited, for not forwarding about 31st December to the Registrar of Companies a list of its shareholders and summary of its capital for tbe year 1910. It was stated that tlie company had gone out of business, and was to all intents and purposes defunct, and the secretary had applied to the Registrar to be struck off the roll. His Worship inflicted a fine of £5, and 33/ costs. A FIREMAN'S PUN. A Finnish fireman off the s.s- Marere, named Hudrovskj, was arrested this morning for fighting with a mate in Cus-toms-street. His explanations in Court this afternoon were voluble, partly English and altogether unintelligible, but ho was fined 10/, as it was gathered that he admitted having a fight. A STOLEN BROOCH. Isabella Carwardine, a woman addicted to drink, pleaded guilty to taking a brooch, valued at £3, from tho house of a friend, and was convicted, ordered to refund tho cost of the brooch and to como up for sentence when called on. The accused is a prohibited person.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19110726.2.63

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 176, 26 July 1911, Page 6

Word Count
849

POLICE COURT. Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 176, 26 July 1911, Page 6

POLICE COURT. Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 176, 26 July 1911, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert