POLICE COURT.—Wednesday. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.] BREACHES OF IMPOUNDING ACT.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXII, Issue 2744, 10 May 1866, Page 4

POLICE CO URT.— Wednesday. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M.] BREACHES OF IMPOUNDING ACT.

William P. Kirkwood, William Macara, and James Matthews were fined 10s and costs for suffering animals to run about the streets. BBEACH OF POLICE ACT. John Whyn was fined 40s. and costs for acting as driver to more than one jrehicle. NUISANCE IN LOWER QUEEN-STEEET. William J. Messenger was charged by the Inspector of Nuisances with having been guilty of a breach of the City Board Act, by allowing an accumulation of dung, soil, or filth, caused by keeping pigs and fowli in his premises, in Lower Queen-street. . Thomas Eeilly, Inspector of Nuisances, deposed : I served the notice produced on the on the defendant on the 21st of April. (Notice to remove produced.) There were about 23 pigs in a room off the butcher's shop, in Lower Queen-street, occupied by the defendant. The piga were in a close room, and there was a very offensive smell. It was a pig-stye, and a very bad one. Within twenty-tour hours after the notice, he took no steps to abate the nuisance. The nuisance continued till the 25 th. In my opinion it was a nuisance detrimental to the health of the neighbours. Cross-examined by defendant: There are some of the things complained of on the premises now. Eor the defence, defendent called Richard Dave, who deposed in answer to questions from his Worship : On the 21st of April, I was in the employ of defendant. On that day I brought ten or twelve pigs off ship. They remained there till the 24th or 25th. I swept up the place every morning, and put down fresh sawdust. Some fowls were bought on the same day — seven or eight couple. There is not a very offensive smell about the place. There would be if not cleaned out. There is nothing very offensive about pigs if they are kept clean. Cross-examined by Mr. Wynn : None of the pigs were killed at Mr. Messenger's. I could live in the same room with pigs, and not find it offensive. John Coupland deposed : My premises adjoin those of Mr. Messenger. On the 21st April last, I had to complain of an offensive smell caused by pigs, calves, sheep, and poultry, being kept in Mr. Messenger's premises. I saw two or three drayloads of pigs being put in. Where they were kept was on the same floor as my parlour. The poultry were kept in a garret. It was an annoyance to me, and a detriment to my business. I have had to remove my family in consequence of the nuisance on Mr. Messenger's place. His Worship said the penalty in this case was far too small, being only 40s. a day. It would seem that the nuisance continued for three days, and the penalty of 40s. would be imposed for each, day, with costs. FOEGEEY. Richard T. Hill was charged with uttering a cheque for £3, to which the name of Charles Heaphy had been forged. Henry H. Adams deposed : I am proprietor of the Queen's Head Hotel. On or about the 18th of January last, the prisoner presented to me the cheque now produced, purporting to be drawn by Charles Heaphy, in favour of Mr. Hill, on the Bank of New Zealand, for the sum of £3. I asked him if he was the person to whom the cheque was made payable, and he said he was. He gave me the cheque in payment of a debt of 4s. 6d. due by himself, and £2 due by another man, for whom he had passed his word. I gave him 10s., being all the change I had at the time. Prisoner endorsed the cheque at my request. On the following morning I presented the cheque at the Bank of New Zealand, when they told me it was a forgery. Harry Guildford Smith, ledger -keeper at the Bank of New Zealand, deposed that he did not cash the cheque because he believed it to be a forgery. Mr. Heaphy was a customer of the Bank of New Zealand. Those acquainted with Mr. Heaphy f s signature would detect that the signature to the cheque was not genuine, but it was calculated to deceive those not acquainted with the signature. Charles Heaphy deposed : I am a surveyor, residing in St. George's Bay. I know the prisoner, who is a surveyor's assistant. The cheque produced purports to be drawn by myself, but this is not my signature. Some part of the signature bears a slight resemblance to mine. The prisoner has received letters from me iu an official capacity, bearing my signature. Persons not well acquainted with my with my signature might be deceived by this cheque. Sergeant Lipsey deposed that he apprehended the prisoner last night, about 12 o'clock, on board the steamer * Sturt,' bound southward. Prisoner was committed to take his trial for forgery. This concluded the busiaess.