MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 451, 9 March 1909, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) AN OLD MAN'S PLIGHT. An old, white-bearded man, named Frank John Lawler, alias De Laney, was charged with-being an idle and disorderly within tho meaning of the Police. Ottcnceß Act, 1903, in that ho has insufficient lawful means of support. ■, Sub-Inspector Phair stated that accused was found sleeping in a vacant section at the back of tho New Zealand _ Insurance Company's premises, and could givo no satisfactory explanation for his presence there. His Worsbip suggested that the police might endeavour to get accused into the Olnro Home. He would bo remanded until Wednesday for sentence, with.-a. view, to seeing what could be done.

WHO THREW THE BRICK? , The unexpected entry of a brick through a window of a house in Dixon Street was the root of two charges preferred against a coloured man named Fitzgerald Clarke, cook, of having assaulted-John,Frascr Cameron and Frederiok Wm. Player. Evidence showed that Cameron and Player, employed at the Telegraph Office, were on their way homo from work after midnight of; February. 27. It was alleged.that when in Upper Willis Street, defendant came up to tho two homeward-hound men' and accused: Player of having thrown a brick through'his window. Player denied the charge, and explained that he had just left his office,: aud subsequently tho three started down tho street to gef : a policeman and. prove the statement. On the- way down tho'jrpad defendant, it "was alleged,' drow off and struck Player on the mouth, cutting his lip and loosening .his teeth. He also hit Cameron on the baok of the head.' ■ For the defence it was urged that the case was one of mistaken identity. The two telegraphists had undoubtedly' been', assaulted, . but defendant had n'ot left, his house after the brick was thrown. On the night in question defendant had ( a musical evening or party at his house in,. Dixon Street, the -guests, who numbered about i M, including five or six coloured men. Things went quietly until 12.50, when a brick came through the window. The guests immediately rushed out and spread in all directions in pursuit of the thrower, but came back without finding anyone. Defendant denied that ho left the house as his wife would not let him go and leave her alone. Several witnesses .swore that defendant and his wife never left the'house. His Worship stated ■'■ ; that defendant pleaded not guilty, and set up an'alibi.' There was one coloured person who was , not accounted for in tlie evidence, and a mistake might easily, have been made in tho dark. There was some doubt about the matter. Defendant must .have' the benefit of it. Both informations';would he dismissed. Mr. Blair appeared for defendant.

CAN REVOLVERS BE. CARRIED? ■ A middle-a.ged, well-dress<!d man named John Jas. M'Caskey appeared in answer to a charge of having been found by night armed with a loaded revolver. A remand to Wednesday was granted to enable accused to get a solicitor. Bail was allowed in the sum of £10' and ono surety . of £10. . A SALUTARY SENTENCE. IMPOSED'ON A PENGUIN SURVIVOR. A seaman named Chas.. ,J,ackson, a survivor from the Penguin wreck, appeared on remand and pleaded not guilty to three charges of indecency in Dixon Street. After evidence was given by four ljitlc girls, pupils of a school opposite to_ the boarding-house in which accused was staying, accused put in a written statement; ' : ■ *'i ■' Sub-Inspector Phair stated that accused had been convicted of indecency once before, and had also been convicted drunkenness. His Worship, addressing accused, said the evidence for the prosecution stood unchallenged, although accused made a statement which amounted to-an admission of tho offonces. It might be that recent events had - had some effect on accused's mind, but it was impossible, on tho evidence, to imposo anything but a salutary sentence. It was dangerous for a; person of accused's descrip.; tion to be at large. Accused would bo convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, with hard 'labour,' on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. The gaol surgeon should bo notified to examine the prisoner. -

"BATTLING IT OUT." "A young man named James Lee pleaded guilty to a charge of having been found by night without lawful excuse in a stable at Newtown, the property of J. J. Callaghan. Sub-Inspector Phair explained , that accused ■ admitted having been sleeping out for,some time. Ho had been convicted of ; vagrancy at.Wanganui some ■, years ago, and had been convicted of insobriety in Wellington. . ■ ■ -,■(,■■ Accused, a rather voluble- person, stated i that he had been the victim, of hard luck lately, and had been looking for work, but could not find it, although ho had spent all his money in the search. He was a labourer by. "profession," but proclaimed himself an "all round man," who could turn his hand to anything. He had just been battling it out until this week, when he was to go to a job at Stratford. . , . His Worship stated that although accused « had been convicted of vagrancy four or five years ago, the Court would give him another opportunity by entering a conviction, and order.him to come up for sentence when called on. Accused left the bus stating that he would easily cot work.

A SAD CASE. . Tho old woman Ellen Soihmerville, who was found wandering about',Stokes Valley last week, appeared on remand on a charge of having insufficient lawful means of support. Sub-Inspector Phair stated'that accused, an old ago pensioner, aged 80, had been remanded to enablo inquiries to be made to 60© if she could be found a place in the Ohiro Home. The manager of the Homo was not prepared to take the woman back —she had been there three times already," but it had been found quite impossible to keep her. It was a pity to.send this old woman to. gaol, but there seemed to be no other way out of it. His Worship agreed with the Sub-Inspec-tor, but remarked that someone must be found who would voluntarily look after the accused, or sho nJust be sent to gaol. The Court suggested that the police might ask tho manager of the Home again if he could not give the old lady another chance. She would be remanded until this morning to enable the inquiry to ba mads.

SUMMARY SEPARATION. In tho case Eleanor 'Williamson v. Alfred John Williamson, an application for summary separation adjourned from last week, defendant was ordered to pay 33a. per w6ek towards the support of his wife and three children. Neither defendant nor his counsel appeared. His 'Worship said that ho had pone over the evidence carefully, and was satisfied that complainant was entitled, to an order.

■ MAINTENANCE. ? '.:._ . . | Joseph Andrews, charged on separate informations with failing to obey nn order for the support of his wife and child, failed to appear. On tho first charge defendant was convicted, and sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment, the warrant to bo suspended if the amount (£S 55.) were paid before March 15. On the second information a conviction and sentence of 14 days' imprisonment was imposed, the warrant to be suspended if tho amount (£2 155.) were paid within 48 hours. Sir. Von Haast appeared for complainant. Samuel Champion, charged with disobeying an order to pay his . wife 15s. per week, pleaded that ho had dono his best, but could not get constant work on the wharf. His Worship advised defendant to seek work elsewhere if he could not get it on tho wharf. Ho had married his wife and must maintain her. He would be convicted and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment, warrant to bo suspended if tho amount is paid boforo March IS.

BY-LAW CASES. FURIOUS DRIVING. George Longhurst pleaded guilty to a charge of furious driving on Thorndon Quay ©n February 27.

Sub-Inspector Phair stated that defendant made his horse gallop from Thorudou Quay to tho Thormlon railway station, and narrowly missed colliding with somo expresses drawn up outside- the station. A conviction and fine of 205., and costs 75., was imposedAloxander Walker was charged (1) with failing to observe tho rule of tho road whist driving a cab in Cuba Street, in that ho did not keen to tho left sido of the street when meeting" a bicycle, and (2) with driving a cab without first having obtained a liconso from the City Corporation. Defendant, who pleaded not guilty to the first chargo, explained that tho horses shied and got out or his control. . , His Worship dismissed tho first information, and oii the second information .or.hsred a conviction and order to pay costs hi is. Spile Williams was convicted and fined 55.. and costs 75., for having an unstamped weighing machine in his possession. Defendant was also ordered to forfeit the scales.

OTHER CA.SES. A young man named Michael Hurlihy was remanded to March 10 on a charge or having on February 27, at Wellington, committed theft of Wo watches, a chain and a medal, of a total value of £1 2s. 6d. from the person of J. W. Rickman. Bail was allowed in the sum of £50, and one surety of £50. ■ ■ , . Three first offenders for drunkenness wcro dealt with. ' One was convicted and discharged on condition that a prohibition order should be issued against him, a second was fined 10s., and ordered to pay medical oxpenaes, £1 Is., and a third was fined 10s.

SLY GROG-SELLING. - FINES OF £10 IMPOSED. POLICE METHODS CRITICISED. After numerous adjournments, the charges of sly grog-selling, preferred as tho result of the police raids on February, 7,_ .were brought on' yesterday. Arthur Francis New was charged with having, on February 7, ab Wellington, unlawfully sold beer to one William Arthur Cahyell, without having a license to sell such liquor. Sub-Inspector Phair conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. P. W. Jackson appeared for defendant. Constable Calwell stated that on February 7 ho called at No. 45 Frederick Street with another man. Defendant served the other man with a bottle of beer, charging 2s. Witness and his companion drank the beer on tho premises, and went, out. ' r Later in the day,"in company with tho same man and Probationer Jones, witness called again.Defendant again served the party with a bottle of beer, for which Jones paid Is. od. This beer also was consumed. Witness asked for a bottlo to take away, hut defendant said: "I don't know you'very well, but you can have another bottle to drink here." He produced a bottle of beer, and witness paid him 2s. for' it. The trio drank the beer. Each of the three ordors was given to defendant. Defendant took the money on each occasion. ■. ■■ ■ i To Mr. Jackson: Tho man witness met first wa3 a stranger witness picked up in the street. Witness went out with tho, intention of getting into defendant's house, whero it was suspected liquor was being sold. Probably some arrangement had been made by witness's superior officers and. the strange man. During the time witness was in the house he saw two other men rcceivo 'and pay for beer. Witness did not know if there was any reward attaching to sly grog cases. Ho had never heard of any. Probationer Jones, of tho Wellington South Police Depot, gave corroborative, ovidonce.'

Sergeant Rutledgo stated that he went to defendant's house on tho afternoon of February 7, and searched the promises under authority of a soarch warrant. Witness asked defendant where tho liquor was kept, and ho pointed ..to a small cupboard in tho scullery, in wliicU witness found eight full bottles of beer, and ono bottle partly empty. On a shelf a bottle of whisky was found. Witness found between three and four dozen empty bottles in ' the backyard. Defendant's premises wero not licensed premises. To Mr. Jackson: The quantity of beer found was not an unusual amount to have in a houso for one's own consumption. Constable Shaw, who accompanied Sergeant Rutledge, was also called. ' Mr. Jackson said that he felt that it was useless putting defendant in tho box, as there was only his evidence against that of tho two constables. He had no other witnesses. Counsel urged that the constables went to the houso for tho oxpress purpose of procuring a conviction, and proceeded to comment on tho methods adopted by the police for the purpose of securing convictions, calling attention to a recent caso before Mr. Kenrick, S.M., in which it was shown that tho liquor was sold only to tho constables who went to tho premises specially to get liquor. In view of fact his Worship said ho would only inflict a small fine. Mr. Kettle, S.M., had also commented on tho methods of the police in sending men out to make offences. In one sense, Mr. Jackson urged, the policemen were as bad offenders as defendants, but they were, police, and their methods' were winked at.

His" Worship remarked that this matter had boon urged before. Mr. Jackson had quoted Mr. Kettle, S.M., and Mr. Konrick, S.M., but Mr. Justice Chapman had expressed a dilferent opinion when ho said that he did not blamo tho police. They bad certain duties to perform, and they might bo unpleasant duties, but the offences had to bo detected, and the police could not he blamed for the part they took. He (his Worship) agreed with his Honour. Other Magistrates might hold different opinions. As thoro was another case to follow, judgment was held over until it was heard.

ANOTHER LIQUOR CASE. Leonard Russell was similarly charged to the above. Constable Calwell stated that on February 7.h0 called at 129 Taranaki Street in company with two men whoso names he did not know. Defondrait was at tho house, and one of the men with witness called for "three i shickers," and defendant supplied the party with a glass of beer each. Ono of the two men paid Is. 6d. for the beer, which was drunk before the trio left. Later in the clay witness returned with ono of the men present on the first occasion, and Probationer Jones. Witness called for drinks, and defendant supplied a glass of beer all round. Witness tendered a sovereign to defendant, which ho handed to a woman, saying "see if you can get change for it." When getting tho change lritncss said "have another," and they had it.' He received 17s. change, and a third visit was made tho same day, and, on this occasion, Sergeant lUitledgc came- in, and commenced to take the names of all present. Witness gave a fictitious name.

To Mr. Jackson: Witness was locked up, after tho raid. • Ho had had a good' many drinks, but the locking-up was a "blind." At this stase Mr. Jackson entered a plea of guilty on behalf of his client. Sub-Inspector Phair stated that ho would like to lefer to tho quantity of liquor found on the premises when the search warrant was executed. There were eight dozen and two bottles of beer in ono spot, 39 empty bottles in another case, and three bottles under the kitchen table. Another point was the number of men found on tho premises, no fewer than seven nanjes having been taken by the police. Sly grog-selling was still on tho increase in spite of tho fines imposed.

His Worship said that defendants were liable to a heavy penalty and they must have known the risk they ran. Each dofondant would bo convicted and fined £10 and costs 7s. An order was made that tho liquor seized should bo forfeited. Alexander Anderson, Samuel Brown, Kobert Costello, Norman Smith, John Sinclair, and Albert Weeks were charged with having been found on tho premises 129 Taranaki Street on Fqbruary 7 on the occasion of tho raid, and with being there for the purpose of illegally dealing in liquor. All tho defendants pleaded hot guilty. After hearing the explanations offered by tho defendants, his Worship said the charges against Brown arid Smith must bo dismissed, and similarly the informations against defendants Anderson and Sinclair. The two former said they were on business, and the latter two were in tho raid. The Court was not satisfied with tho explanations of Costello and Weeks; they would be convicted and fined 20s. and costs 7s.