MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 71, 17 December 1907, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

POLICE CASES. > (Uoi'uro Mr. AV. G. Itiddcll, S.M.) A BREACH OF THE PEACE. A plea of "Guilty" was entered by a young man named Charles I!rock, to a charge of behaving in sucli a manner in Dixon Street as to occasion a breach of the peace. It was stated by the police that defendant wont to. his lodgings on Saturday, aud made his ivay

into the wrong bedroom. Trouble"..thcn ensued between the occupant of the room and accused, terminating in what the police termed a rather bad street fight which caused a great commotion.. ~ A fine of 405., and costs Gs., in default seven days' imprisonment, was imposed'.' " ',- ALLEGED OBSCENE LANGUAGE. A charge of using obscene language in a railway train between Port Chalmers and l)uncdin was preferred against Robert William Guest. Chief Detective M'Grath' asked for a remand until this morning iii order to communicate with Dunedin to see'if'there was any objection to' accused being dealt -with in Wellington. Bail was allowed jii self £10, and one surety of : £10. ' - • ■ A MILKMAN IN TROUBLE. ' A young man named Charjes Petersen'was charged with the theft of 1-is. 2d:; the property of thu Wellington Co-operative Dairy Co., Ltd. The police informed the Court that defendant had been employed delivering milk for the Company, and hail e6llcctcd..thp amount of money mentioned in the charge on behalf of his employers, and converted it to his own use. Nothing outside 'the'jiVe'sent charge was known agaiust.the accused, but he was understood to have admitted ,taking sums totalling £2 ss. 3d. by similar means to the above. The Company did"not wish' to press the matter. Defendant was remanded for sentence until Wednesday to enable .the police to make further inquiries into his past record. A CHARGE OF ASSAULT; 7 " ; An argument in connection'with a-suit of clothes led to Thomas'Mailgan appearing on a charge, of assaulting '• Charles :George Rhimes, clothier and mercer'.* -Defendant pleaded "Not guilty." After-'.hearing--,the evidence His Worship considered - that defendant was guilty, and entered a convieti'on anil fine of £I,"'and costs:..,C2 75.; -in default seven da_vs' imprisonment. Mr. Levve.v appeared For:, complainant, and Mr. 1 Hindmarsh for the defence. ALLEGED FORTUNE-TELLING. ' A NEW DEFENCE. 1? : An entirely now dpfpnee .was raised in the case of tin; 1'olicl) v.;-Lily Krause, otherwise Madamo Esperson. '■ •' Tho accused charged that she (1.) did, on December 4 undertake to tell fortunes; (2) oil December .4 did use a subtle craft by palmistry.'' '.to deceive and impose on certain of His Majesty's subjects, viz., Charles Dunnett aiid AVrii. Pender." Sub-Inspector O'Doiiovon prosccutod, ' and Mr. Neilson appeared for the'.defence:' . " Defendant outered pleas of "hot guilty 1 ' to both charges. / ' ■ • Probationer Duncett, of the' lioiiiit : Cook Police Station, deposed that defendant lived at No. 54, Ghuzneo Street: Oil December 3 witness went to li6i:".lipuse'".to get his fortune told. A man answered his.knock. at.the door and witness asked for Madame Espiirs'oh in consequence of an ail vert isement ho had read in the newspaper. „ Witness .said, "1)0 you tell fortunes Y" and Sladame. replied that she did not tell fortunes, -but, read tho hand by palmistry. Witness told her-ho: would call back lator. He returned to the promises next day in company with Probationer Ponder. Witness and his colleague were showji to a seat in the piissago, and whilst there two ladies camO out 1 of tho room ..in which madame was seated. " Witness ■. and Pender wero tlieti shown • into -the room. Thoro were a pack of cards, :t "lamp on a hand mirror on tho table, and witness ivas' told to hold out his hands, palms-upwards, oil the table. Defendant--told him-he -was going three sea journeys, one -'a''particiilarly long one to. a foreign "country whore* tho inhabitants spoko good English. '>"■ Hp was also going to live to'the ago-of--80. or 82 years, and he should have bven' a'.'commission agent or something in-'connection with 'land. Ho was going to bo married twice, and would make a good" M.H.R., or doctor if he used his brains, a littlo' m'o'ro. Ho was also going to get 'liitiQii tho head with somo instruinciit. On witness asking what the fee was, ,defcndaiit" said it was 25.. Gil. Defendant,' in, answer to a question, said it was against the-law.-of the* country to tell fortunes by cards, but she would tell his if he lilted.Dofondaiit Slid Pender was going on three sea . .-journeys, • one to a land where they spoke;very bail English. He was going to be married twice. Ho would not mako a good doctor,. but woiild be a good engineer. Pender also.paidSs..'Gil. To Mr. Neilson: AVitness wont to the. house under instructions from tho police. Jlo did not altogether boliovo .what- the: woman,--bad told him. Probationer Ponder gave ".corroborative evidence, with the addition of soiiio'fafets concerning his alleged future. ' He was to live until ho was 70, was to meet with ail accident by breaking one of his' legs above the knee, and was going to be left a sriiii of money by an old gentleman,''who was not a relation, i • : - Under'cross-examination, witness admitted that his future conduct would not bo affected by what "Madamo" lind'told him. Mr. Neilson, for the defence, cont-Oiided that tho information' which ' charged ' 'defendant with using a''subtle craft by palmistry to deceive and impose on h'e'r : clieiits was apparently laid under section'so of tlic"' Indictable Offonces ' Summary Jurisdiction Act, and could not be sustained. This section, lie argued, was purely a p'roeeduro ' scctioii, and created no offence, and it'was" necessary to look elsewhere "for 'tho foliiidAtiOif'of tho offonco. Ho hold that no statutory' provision, creating such an offence, iii' force in tho Dominion, could bo cited:- Section 40 under which tho otlior "iiifo'rmatioii was laid, was also purely a v procuilui'o siVtitjoiiJ .bift it rested upon Section 240 of tho Criminal Code. Reverting to Section 50, ho argued that it-would be useless for■ tlic police to contend that it was "based .tipon sdihewhat similar Acts of Georgo IV:, as 'thnso Acts wore not in force here. Counsel urged that, it was necessary "to 'soMrfcn conviction "to show intent to deceive and itripo. ( ie','''afid this, ho argued, had not been'dolus, as tho witnesses for the prosecution did not for a moment pretend to believe what defiVn'daiit had told them, and further,' defendant did not anticipate that her statements would bo acted upon, or would' produce any. effect on her auditors. Counsel eoiitoiidod that there must be an intention v to 'inllueiico or produce an effect, and . in .'.the caso under notice dofondaiit had been;given "n -roving commission to state . what- slid; chose, 1 well knowing that her hearers were not'credulous beings. Tho information charging tho undertaking to tell fortunes, laid under-Section 49, followed Section'24o of 'the Criminal Code, which section empowereil-the .infliction of one year's imprisonment'for'ee.rtiiin acid,, ouch as practising, sorccry,' or encliantniunt, and tho--inclusion in the section of an undertaking to toll: fortunes implied an active imposing on ignorance or credulity. In counsel's- opinion defendant's conduct could not ijbc' distinguished from the amusement of as frequently indulged in at. private tea-fa bles anil in prirato - drawing-rooms. entire, section indicated that something more than the idlo tittle-tattle - spoken,.- was; needed to support a conviction. . The-English,cases, Rcgina v. Eutwistlo, and: other cases were examples in which tho accused.-knew"l,hat conduct would be aU'eoted or, .inlluenco wrought by tho Act. ' Hero,,.as Jar as ...the, witnesses were .concerned, the matter, was; practically a.joke. Sub-Inspector O'Doiiovan agrecd:.that' Sec-, tions 49 and 50 were purely t prO(;ed|ir,o. ,seq-l tions, mid did not create 1 the Oli'enco, but; only provided for summary punishment.' Section 40 depended upon Section .240 of. the: Criminal Code, but With regard' toi section 50' —"using palmistry to - deceive ■ and im- ; pose," it undoubtedly had no-corresponding enactment in the Criminal. Code,' and no statutory basis as far as criminal- law in New Zealand was concerned. There was no common law of prosecution' libw in Now Zealand, and the only foundation the section, could have would be in the; Iniporiarstatutes, 5; George IV.. cap. 83, see.ti6ii--4|' which, .was undoubtedly still in forco in England, ,aiid;| therefore must have been in force ill New; Zealand on January 14, 1840.., .11'- it ap-i plied to the circumstances of tho colony! then, the only point remaining'was whether, this statute was still in force-in tlio Doniin-; ion. The Sub-Inspector admitted' that tliO' point raised by Mr. Neilson Was a Very"'im-' portant one, and, as far as lie was aware,; was now raised for the first time! His Worship said lie woiild rcscrvo his decision until .Wednesday as certain law

points had been raised wliich ho preferred to look:into: before delivering judgment. ■ '"■ ; ' JAGGING TROUT. ?; A'. WARNING TO 'POACHERS. ; . ' A, ease ,of some interest to trout fishers arose out of the prosecution of two youths named John Jones and Albert Pym. charged with unlawfully using jags . for the purpose of-taking fish in the South, Karori .stream, lhc -.information was laid under the regulations, -of,- the - -Fisheries • Act.- -Picas -of " Guilty,'-' weie -entered by both- accused. Mr. Gray, who appeared for the prosecution, remarked that although the .offenders were only youths, they''appeared -to know their, business.. The- .fish- ; woro caught "by means ,of a,jag made by attaching a.couple . 01-large-sized fish-hooks to the end of a. , short stick. . .When the. ranger- caught the defendants,' tliey.. had: twenty-seven trout, in a diag. which they carried,- and, on being., asked, for their names and address, gave false iiaiiieti and false places of residence, i ]'is_.)\orsliip.pointed out that the penalty for'cases, of .this .'ki,tid"was,laid down by tho regulations as ,40s. minimum and.£so "maximum. lie considered that the fact; that the Offender's gave false,- names" dud .addresses Showed that' they. jjrfusti'.baws'known' - that tlioy,' wore -doing .what. was wr.oiig. .Any P ell! dt.V 'imposed oil. them; would probably fall upon .'their parents or relations, and it seemed to the. Court: that a monetary'iieiialty did not meet cases of _this'j;inil. .R lo ,', rc S'dations provided for a penalty a fid each of the defendants would lie fined the minimum sum of 405.,. with cost's"2Ss., in default 'forty-fight hours' imprisonment. -SHOOTING GAMEVOUT OF-SEASON:' -'Two .'youthful; spoM-smen, - Alexander Knopps ■ and Gborge M'Allister.'. camti ward oil a charge of shooting a hare out. of season.-'' ICiibpps' pleaded "Guilty,:'iuad , •M'Allister. Not guilty."' • -Mr: Gray appeared'for the prosecution.. ' • Francis'-llenry Coate, ranger, stated .that when he inet the lioys each of them; had a - gun.- On'-searching'one of the bags and finding- a'iiarcKiibpps'inforiiied witness that tliey had mot "a man "that, morning, and ; lis had" giveri' thinu- one-'of : -foiir hares he' had. On meeting Knopp subsequently he told Vifc ness that hothho and his friend had put a charge into the hare. . . ... — A'lbi: Kliopfts,"'^oiv^Olith;'.admitted that he shot this hare,-although life had previously told the ranger that both' lie and his friend put a , ' : 'it"M'Allister,' in his'evidence, denied having shat ;"a'£ r tlTe'hare/f.' 1 '" ' His. Worship dismissed 1 the information against : "M\'Ulister; v,: a'nd -ciiiivicted and' fined Knopps CI and costs £1 Bs. j 1 in default forty-eight l hours'' imprisonment: ' > % ' ,v v. A .CLAIM FOR-COMPENSATION. Finality -was -reac|ied in ( the compensation case:, Digby. A. ..Jenkins;- (Mr. Young) •T.-'the Karori -Borough -Councilr (Mr. -Johnston); a ciaiiu fo'i"£2oU- compensation-Tor alleged dopreciation". of. property- caused '.through the Council, during the. course -of its tramway \vork's ; .lowering tho level-of tho road in-front of claimant's-property by 0 feet-. ■- After hearing afgumenfc the. Court, which consisted of .Dr., A;-. M'Artliur, S.M., and-Messrs. J. B. Harcourt- and A. C.' Elliott,' assessors; dBJ 1 cided that-the claim -could not be-allowed; : Each party was, ordered .to pay -its; owni.costsj ,inqludii)g-, the. assessors' fees,'; £15,155.:.each. ' " MISCELLANEOUS. ' David Wright'.was; convicted.; and fined 10 s., in, default' forty-eight .Lours', imprisonn'ie'iit-, 'for insobriety," and "tine first offender, trho did not appear; was convicted and'fiiied Ills., in default forty-piglil; hours' -imprisonnieut'.!'' For' riding.'' bicycles 'without .'lights • rifter;;'.iitf lUiet''.'EdWaird.'';lldsenbQTP!''. was 'obh- ' victjcd-.andlined 10s:," and'.costs' 75., and AVilliam Davis, C. J. Hiekson, and Otto Simpson;' were each.' .convicted and'.fined-' ss. and costs 7s. •_ ;''john -was;Q.rdere'd '.''.to ...contribute the sum of- Gs;' per week' towards the' support'of each of his three children." IC. . Lea was . granteda summary separation "from Lea,' on,.the ground of .insobriety- and' persistent, cruelty. Defendant was" oi'Ubre'd to pay costs/ £2' lis., hnd..,to'.c'o.rit|-ihute towards, the support of'' his .wife,'',. Mjf.', .Kirkcaldie, ~appeared for complainant.- - ,At the Mount Cook PoliW Station yesterday, before Mr. Charles ■ Beiibow, J.IV,. lour first- - offenders-were fined, s's. for drunkenness, anil ...one;,was convicted, and .discharged. George Harden was-filled 10s.; Frank Murphy, 20s. ; ,Jolin Reid 405., in default seven days; and William Devlin .wag committed, for seven-days—-all for drunkenness. i';- ■ - . ■ ,