POLICE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 63, 13 March 1912, Page 5

POLICE COURT.

(Before Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M.). BREAKING PROHIBITION. Joseph Halloran absolutely denied havtaken drink, and so broken the terms o* his prohibition order. Furthermore he contradicted the arresting constable's statements concerning the surrounding circumstances The magistrate said that but for the fact of the defendant attempting to make out that the constable was telling a "cock and bull" story he would have been inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. The defendant would be convicted, but as he had not been up for four months he would not send him to Pakatoa. A fine of £2 and costs -was imposed. James Leatham expressed horror at the mere suggestion that he had broken prohibition. He admitted that when arrested in Nelsonstreet at about 9.30 p.m. he had a couple of bottles of beer, but they were for a si-ck room mate. "As for mc taking beer home for myself," he remarked, "Oh, it is perfectly untrue." He was convicted and fined £2 or seven days. James Given. an elderly man of respectable atlire, pleaded guilty to having entered the Northeote Hotel during the currency ol his prohibition order. It was the defendant's first lapse since prohibition, and he was convicted and fined £1. A similar punishment was meted out to Willia.ni Black for a like offence, he having gone to employment at Hamilton. BY-LAW BREACHES. George Wiseman, for failing to keep on the proper side of th road when driving up Victoria-street, was convicted and fined 10/ and costs. Barrett lirown, a boy who rode a bicycle on the footpath in Great North-road, and ran into two girls, was fined 2/G and costs. For a similar offence in Birk-dale-road, Basil Woolly was also fined 2/6 and costs. ASSAULT CHARGE DISMISSED. At the Police Court on Monday Carl Lange was proceeded against on a "charge of assault and obscene language at St. Helier's Bay on January 24. Mrs. Benelick, Mrs. Vaughan, and the letter's husband were the witnesses for the prosecution. They stated that when they were coming down the wharf Lange accosted them, and asked the male witness hie name. One of the women made reply: "We know your name; you killed our cat." The evidence for the prosecution was that Lange struck one of the women, knocked her down, tore her clothes, and broke her watch chain from round her neck, after which, it was alleged, he kicked her as she lay upon the ground. Then the husbandl took a part in the affair, and a general scuffle ensued. Defendant, in the course of his evidence, admitted that he went up to V&ughan and asked him his name. Vaughan then struck him over the eye, and knocked him down, the man holding him there while the women attacked him. A witness for th.: defence was Mr. Menzies, contractor, of St. Helier's. who stated that his attention was called to tho affair by the cry of a :hild. and he saw defendant on the ground being somewhat roughly treated. He rar across to Lange's assistance, and then took the man into his house, where h>? attended to some injuries he had received about the face. This witness declared thjw he heard no obscene language. The mafristrate said that the evidence of the only independent witness didi net coincide with the evidence for the prosiv cution, and he would therefore dismiss the charces of obscene language ard assaulC He said, however, that defendant should have chosen a private place to discuss what was evidently an old grievance with the parties to the prosecution. By accosting thosv people in a public plac he had created a disturbance, and on a technical charge of threatening behaviour in a public place Lange would fined £2. and £1 11/ costs. Mr. Hall Skelton appeared for the defendant. Information previously published concerning the result of this case was incorrect.

THE LAW'S LONG ABM. Ernest F- Boyss, aged about 35, now a married man, was "charged with having deserted) from the H.M.s. Pioneer at Dunedin on December 23, 1906. Mr. A. Moody appeared on 'iis behalf, and in reply U> a request by the police for a remand for a week, asked Mr if there was no proviston imdcT which he could be admitted to bail. For four or five years he had been in business. The magistrate said he did not even have the power to request the police to liberate him. The defendant said his time was up two v-ars ago Sub-inspector Hendrey remarked that as the crew with which the defendant had been commissioned had been discharged, it was possible that wben the police could get into touch with the commands of the Pioneer the Utter might say that he did net want this man back. A remand until to-morrow w»s granted with the understanding that the defendant should be brought up aa eooc a? a communication came from the Pioireer.