MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 73, 19 December 1907, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

...... police cases: ■ ■. \ .. :.;;■; Mr! W. G. Riddell, S.M.) , . :. .■':■■:" •■■ ~ i . • • . THEFT OF A.CHEQUE. A young Inan named James Lewis appeared on a chargo of stealing a clieque-for £46 17s. tho property of Robert Hannah and Co. Chief-Detective M'Grath conducted tho case for the prosecution. • A number of witnesses were called to provo the case against the accused, and the wholo of the matter.concerning tho affair was gone into in detail. ;.,Accused when arrested.■by Detective Amlrows,.oti .Dccembor 12, .riiaclb/u clean breast of things.' in a statement made' to the detective.' " . '.' ■ Accused pleaded "guilty, , ! and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. ' . ENTERING. A charge, of breaking and entering a dwelling occupied by William Robertson on December 4, and stealing goods valuod at £5, was preferred against Frederick Cooper, remanded from last week.' Chief-Dotectiyo M'Grath prosecuted, and Mr. Neavo'appeared for tho defence. ... . . Mrs.'Sarah' Robertson, Grove' Roadj'Kclburne, stated that she loft her homo at-10 a.m. on Wednesday,' December 4. On returning, home at 1 p.m.. witness found tho. back door was broken open, and the house.was all upset inside. A gold ring, a box of afternoon teaspoons, sugar tongs, a purse and 3s. in money, a razor and a brooch, of , a total value of £5' were missing. The ring (produced) was witness's property, and was taken out of a wa'tch-caso on the dressing-table. Witness thought she recognised accused, who she. thought used to drive Denhard's baker's ■cart and.dclivored bread at her house. Witness had not seen accused for about five' years. ' Madge Richardson, domestic servant, deposed that sho knew accused; who boarded with witness's mothor. He left .on Decomber 5, and on the night previous'to this Witness and her sister went to Fuller's Theatre with accused. When .they were standing up waiting for a seat accused passed'witness a ring, saying, " Hero is a present for you. I am going away in the morning,", Ho said he paid :275.. (3d. for it. After leaving the theatre: accused said he would send witness a brooch; for Christmas. ' ) v'■ ■. ■ ■.-

Detectiyp C.sssells deposed that he charged accused with tho offence on December 12, and told him ho. had recovered the ring from Miss Richardson. Accused admitted that ho gave her the ring, and said ho bought it from two men in the Terminus Hotel for ss. He did not know the men. Accused loft Wellington oa the morning of December 5 for Auckland, and witness received tho ring that night b'y calling on Miss Richardson. Accused, who reserved his defence, pleaded "not guilty,' , and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. A SECOND CHARGE. A second charge of breaking and entering the dwelling of. Charles A. St. G.-Hickson in Fitzherbcrt Terrace on December 3, and stealing three ladies' watches, two gold neck chains, lour gold tie-pins, two gold rings, four gold brooches,'one diamond ring, arid ono gold bangle, of a total value of £35, was also preferred against Cooper. Edith Hickson deposed that she resided at 32 Vit'zhorbert Terrace. On December 3 witness left her honic at 12.-J5. "The doors were all locked up,' but some of'tho windows were not locked.. On returning at 2.45 tho kitchen window was open, but tho doors were still locked. . The upstairs rooms had been ransacked, and the articles mentioned in the information wore found to be missing. The cash-box (produced), which waa locked and

loft on n chest of drawers in nn upstairs bedroom when witness left tho house, was found in the coalhouse when she .returned.

Detective Andrews stated that' about 3.30 p.m. nn December 3 he went to Mr. Mickson's placa to. inquire into the complaint of breaking "ami entering the house. He found the back window , open ami the, drawers, etc., in the upstajrs portion of the hftusc were disarranged. The cash-box, previously produced, was, in a coal-shed out in the yard, with the lid prised open. There were finger prints on the box, and witness hanoind it over to the Police Finger Print Department. Charles J. Knight, principal warder at the Terrace Prison, deposed that he knew the accused, and took his linger prints on the paper (produced) on July 3, 1903.

.Edmund Walter Dinnie,. of tlio Finger Print Department, stated that ho received th cash box (produced) from Detective Androws on December 3. Witness photographed the four 'finger prints found on the box. Two of the impressions were identical with tho left thumb print of Cooper, as shown in the sheet already put in. The third and fourth impressions corresponded with Cooper's right thumb and right index linger prints. Altogether there were thirty points of similarity in the prints, leaving no doubt ill' tho mind of witness that they were identical. . Detective Cassells stated that when .he charged accused with the offence, the man denied all knowledge of the offence, and said he did not know where Vitzherbert Terrace was. This concluded tho case for the prosecution. .' " , . ' : Accused pleaded "riot guilty," and was committed to. the Supremo Court for trial. ' GIVEN A CHANCE. Charles Peterson was. brought forward for sentence on a charge' of stealing the sum of 14s. 2(1, the property of the Co-operativo Dairy Company. ■ Chief-Detective M'Gratk stated he had learned that accused was a native of Wellington, eighteen years of age, and nothing was known against him outside of tho present charge. He had been two years in the omploy of the company from which lie stole the money, and up to the time of the present charge had. borne a good character. Thoro was no reason, to suppose accused had been pilfering previously. His Worship said he was prepared to givo accusod a chance. He wouid be convicted and ordered to come up for sentonce when called upon, the amount of £2 55., admitted to. have been taken, to be refunded. "It is to be hoped you will never -.appear in tlm Court, again," concluded His Worship. "You are. getting an opportunity—mako use of it , ." , '"- ' I CHINESE IN TROUBLE. Two Chinese, Pook Lee and You Lee, were oach charged with breaches of the Shops and Oltices Act Amendment Act, 1907, by selling and tobacco after 8 p.m., the hour of closing for tobacconists. Tho defence set up by both accused was ignorance of the Act,' notwithstanding a statement by the Inspector of the Labour Department that the provisions of the 'Act had been explained to both', defendants. His i Worship took into consideration the fact that the law was a recent one, and fiued each defendant £1, and costs, Took Leo, ■£1 os. 3d., and You Leo, 12s. 3d., in deiault 7 days' imprisonment.

: TOBACCONISTS' CLOSING HOTJE,. •.'. ■ Saniuol Sigall appeared to answer a charge laid by tho Labour Department of having failed to close his shop'at 8 p.m. on December. 13, as required to do by the Shops and Offices Act. Mr. Hindmarsh appeared for defendant, who pleaded " not guilty. , ' : ■ Evidence for the prosecution was called, to show that defendant had his door ajar and the interior of the shop lighted up at 8.15 p.m. He had been advised previous to. this by the Department that he must closo at 8 p.m. Defendant stated that he closed his, shop to .the public at 8 p.m., and romaiued behind to finish a small task. All the lights wore out except ono. When ho loft the shop, after the visit of the inspector it was four minutes past 8. Two -witnesses deposed that they were- unable to .purchase'cigarettes at. the shop'at fivo. minutes past 8, although thero was a light inside. l ' ■■■•■; .- , His Worship held that'the. weight of evidence ,was against: the prosecution.) and tho information mustbe dismissed.,' ...

MISCELLANEOUS. I Adelino Lilian May; Francis, alias Ticrnan, ordered to appear ou ; remand on a charge of forging the name of Maude Tiernoy to a receipt for £2, was unable to attend. Tho police stated that a note had just been received from . the. gaol sergeant that accused would bo unable to attend the Court before the end of tho week. Another remand was granted' until 9.30 a.m. on Saturday. A 3'ouiig man named Charles Bailey, described by the police as a Customs and shipping agent, pleaded "guilty" ,to a chargo 'of having received the sum of £12 10s. in ■terms ■requiring >him to account for it to Douglas Patrick, and having committed : theft by fraudulently omitting to account for the' same....-. Chief Detective M'Grath stated that defendant had boon given the cheque in order to clear some goods, mid converted it to his own use. His Worship fremanded accused until Friday for sentence; V Fivo wanderers from the path of sobriety . were brought forward to answer for their '. shortcomings. Thomas Scott, for habitual drunkenness, was convicted and sentenced to one. month's imprisonment with, hard labour. 'Esther''Collier, and -J amps Gibson were each convicted and fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment, and two ■ first offenders were convicted and ordered to pay 55., jn'default 24 hours'imprisonment. •■ '.- ■■■•■•'. A prohibition order was granted against Mary Hannah Medlih, to take effect for one year.

FORTUNE-TELLING. ■ .'■■ AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. Judgmont was delivered by Mr. Riddell, S;M;, in'the case Police v. Lily Krause. Defendant was charged on two counts with (1) on December 4, 1907, undertaking to tell fortunes; and (2) using a subtle- craft Aby palmistry to deceive and imposo on certain of His Majesty's subjects, to wit, Charles Dunnet and William Ponder.. His Worship held that the first chargo had been, proved. An offence was created by Section 240 of the Criminal Code, and Section 49 of the Indictable Offences Act gavo a magistrate or justices power to treat tho matter summarily, and to inflict a lighter ponalty than that set out in the Criminal Code. It had beon contended for-the defence that there was practically no difference between tho present'' caso" and fortune-telling at private parties.. .The case of Regina. v. Entwhistle, which had been cited by both sides, however, drew a • distinction • and practically decided that thoro was no deception in fortune-tolling .nt.private parties.- On the first charge defendant would bo convicted and fined 4,05., and costs 75., in default seven days' imprisonment, '.', ..;'.'■ ' ' •" . , 'Dealing.'with.;the 'second information His Worship considered the facts were the same, but Section 50 of the Indictablo Offences Act, under which the information was* laid, assumed an offence, although it did not create ono. It had been argued ■ for the defence that there was no creation of such an offence in any New statute. By the Imperial Vagrancy Act—s George IV—every person using any subtle craft, means, or device,' by palmistry or otherwise, to deceive and impose on.any of His Majesty's subjects, was doomed a rogue and vagabond, and was liable to a penalty. That Act, by virtue of Tho English Laws Act, 1858, was in force in. New Zealand until 1860. In that year tho New Zealand legislature passed a. Vagrants' Act.containing a number of clauses appearing in the Imperial Act, but omitting the ono creating the offence alleged in tho present'information. Tho Vagrants' Act of 18GG was in' turn repealed by the Police Offences Act, 1884, but again no provision was niado for any clause creating an' offenco where- a person used any subtle craft to deceive and imposo on others. The implication, therefore, was that tho clause in Section 4 of 5 Goorgo IV had been repealed by the Vagrants' Act of 1860, and .never re-enacted! There being thus, in His Worship's opinion, no offenco, tho information would bo dismissed. . Sub-Inspector O'Donovon represented- tho police, and Mr. Neilseh appeared for the defence, '