MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 653, 2 November 1909, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

= (Before Mr. "W. G. Riddell,' S.M.) "■ THE FORTUNE-TELLING CASES. INGENIOUS POINTS RAISED. '- ; In the fortune-telling case, Police v. Mary Lyons, alias':Madamo iiHylarid, his"Worship gave judgment on a point raised by .Mr. Wilford, ; viz., that his client', had i a right to elect to go before a jury. .. . Tho offence, proceeded. the Magistrate, was an indictable one, as; by Section 261 of,the Crimes Act, 1908, any porson undertaking'to tell fortunes was liable on conviction •> to one year's -imprisonment, but by Section 224 of the Justices; of tho Peace Act, the justices; instead pf committing, the accused for trial, might, if they thought that the offences'could be sufficiently : punished in a summary,. manner, deal with' the offender accordingly.,. Defendant had electcd to bo tried by a jury, and counsel had argtted'that, if sucli a general right 'existed,'.it could not bo-taken;away by-Section , 221, His Worship was satisfied that, in these | cases, lio such right existed.. " I think," Mr. j Riddell added, I " that this offence must be treated as an indictable, one until; the evidence for the prosecution has beon completed. Then 'the justices, if, they consider .that a prima facie case has been mado.out, may either commit accused .for trial or. deal with the matter summarily. _ If they decide on tho latter coursei. the maximum is fixed by tho statute at one month's imprisonment, and accused has no right of election. If the original term of imprisonment. fixed by tho Crimes Act had remained unaltered, no doubt accused would .havo been, entitled to, -the right, churned. The present proceedings are in order, and. the Court has no authority to offer any right to demand the privilege claimed. I-also. consider that a prima facie case-has.been'mado out, and that accused should :ha dealt w)th summarily." -V. Mary Lyons then gave evidence, stating that she had been convicted previously of- foretelling the future. Since that, she had not repeated tho . offence. She did not, however, foretell the future to either Probationers Snow; or Broberg: Were you convicted'in Sydney in January Yes.''. , Then you did not tell Mr. Wilford the truth?. —"That is another' country."- / ■ , . Mr. Wilford contended that nothing had been shown in evidence in regard to foretelling the future, except the word of an accomplice. He therefore asked that his client ba given the benefit of the doubt. ■' . ■ His Worship - remarked that .there was .no objection .to - reading .character by hand or palm. It did not constitute •an - offence so long as it related -merely to the' character of the individual. ■ -Mr. Wilford: Supposing that the reading of the palm showed that tho formation of the third finger indicated forgery, and the reader ad vised;,caution or the individual. would com-, mit that offence, how would that, be considered?', ' ; . . • . His Worship: I don t propose to discuss that. Some of the statements sna made concerned the future. I do not agree- that' Snow was 'an accomplice-in the strict sense of.Uio term. It is purely, a question of oath against "oath, although tho constable made statements'which were ..untrue. To.-believe defendant", it would, appear that the probationers had entered the ,box. to commit perjury from beginning to end. Defendant must be' convicted;., Sho Trill bo fined'.£3, in default seven days' imprisonment: ' The case against Clara Sinclair was adjourned until Wednesday, . -' •

v SLY .GROG-SELLING. • Mr. Biddell delivered, reserved'judgment in Hie case against William Humbert. M'Laughlan, charged with- selling whisky m- Kilbirmo without a'licerise..\.-■■■-v.; >' ;■ -■ . In reference to the points raised by Mr. 'Wilford that, the onus was on the. police to prove that defendant had not- a. license,' and that they' could not question him-after their case 'had -been- closed, his-Worship ,held that the ;bnus lay defendant, .who', ought to have 'produced his license^if he- had' one—when the ' case ' was called. ; ■ It. must - he' presunied that defendant,held no license,' 'and he would' be convicted and fined : J220, 'his. Worship : re--marking that these - cases - were -becoming: very frequent. Mr. Wilford: was; granted leave to appeaL , : ' .

THE BUMBOAT DAYS REVIVED. ; John M'Leani alias John. JPDonald; .pleaded not .guilty to„a, chargei-flfubringingj liquor on bbard H.M.S." l , ioii4er!'.without , ''xh6 consent of the comYnanderr

Corporal Hughes',' of'the Pioneer, said'that while the.vessel was alomside the wharf. de. fendant came on board. ' Money passed- between .defendant - . and -a member, of- tne ship's company., Questioned ,by.;witness,illlean admitted having liquor about, him..... : Chief-Detective Broberg stated" that the commander asked him'-to' stafe that this ,was not an. isolated.case. ..-.-.'l '

. After - hearing further, evidence, defendant was \convicted. and fined! .£3 and 75.. costs, m default-14 days' -imprisonment, \

; OTHER CASES. In connection with an alleged house of /illfame, at' College Street, : Francis Brosriahan was; charged with- - being 1 the.- occupier,:- and with knowingly, permitting these.'premises to be used. as such, Annie Brosnahan,. alias Bradbury, mth assisting in the management, Alice Den-, nisoni alias; Watson, Stella' Taylor, alias Marslin,'and Maggie M'Hugh, alias Hargreaves,. with being - idle ■ and ..disorderly, persons. ..'All charges were adjourned: till Friday. Two young men named William Walter Burgess and William Oughtonwere called upon, to answer a chargo. of ■ -assaulting Frederick Diamond. Mr. Wilford, appeared .for Burgess; and asked for Burgess was fined .205... or' 7 ■ days', imprisonment, -while, his companion was finod'4os,, or 14 days. : ■ ; ■'•. Charged ..with usifcg threatening behaviour and obscene language.vHeriry Thomas was.fined on the respective: charges ,205.;. or 7. days'- imprisonment, rarid <£3'0r,21-days.: ;'r ~-/ On charges of insobriety ■ and; the use>of. obscene, language, James. Armstrong' was., fined 55., or, 24 hours' imprisonment, -and .£3, ior 21 days'; imprisonment'.respectively. 1 . . Upon>a 'charge.of 'stealing a bicycle, valued at .£!, the property of Albert John' Gourlay, Edward'Lanaway; was fined 40s.,'in default• 7 days?: imprisonment. -. . ,'•..' -; .Tor leaving.: a-vehicle Unattended,';. Thomas; Harris was fined 10s.', with.cbsts v 7s. , Fc|' insobriety; Andrew Thomas -Plunkett was fined 205., fn,default .48 hours', imprisonment. Three first offenders'.were , each: fined,-as.,- and. one,- whojfailed to; appear, was fined 10s. -~v

MOUNT COOK POLICE-COURT. At the Mount-Cook Polico Court yesterday, before Mr. T. Lambert, J.P., Charles, Anderson pleaded guilty to being found drunk in Clydo Quay. Accused when arrested had a, considerable sum of money on him, and the presiding justice pointed out 1 to 1 ' the offender"TEat the constable had done him a'good turn by arresting .him,, thereby possibly saving- his, monfey., He was fined 55,, with the usual alternative. John :M'l ? arlane pleaded; guilty to 'a charge of insobriety, and - was fined :'ss., in .'default 21 hours' imprisonment. -Two first: offenders ..tor' iusobrioty were convicted, and discharged. .: . . - ■