POLICE COURT. -Friday. [Before G. M. Mitford, and Joseph May, Esqs., J.P.s.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVI, Issue 3971, 14 May 1870, Page 4

POLICE COURT. -Friday. [Before G. M. Mitford, and Joseph May, Esqs., J.P.s.]

Drunk and Disorbehly.— Jatnea Rowlaiid, Henry Uavis, and Charles Baker pleaded guilty to this offence, and were each fined 20i and costs, or to suffer 48 hours' imprisonment with hard labour. t j Assaulting a . Constable. — Henry Davis , was charged by ConstableA Clark* with having assaulted him in the execution of his •duty in Queen-street.— He pleaded guilty, and waa fined 40s. and costs* or to suffer two weeks' imprisonment with hard labour. Assault. — Henry Davis was further i •charged by William Dalziel with violently ' assaulting him in Queen-street, by striking ,hii» on. the nose with hi& ,fist,,on May 1%1-r* Hejpleaded" guilty, and- was -fined 40s. and costs", or to suffer two" weeks' iniprisonmeiit with harcl-labour 1 ; this sentence to, begin at 'the termination* of the forpier-one.- », ,-; t»FFEBIN6, BOR SaEET 'D^flf - HEN PHBASAi|TS:MThis' was- a case w^hich .had;' been heajrd kl&wMya ago,'; the defphdants being; 'Alfred D'ornwW smd-SamuelP»rtnage.—Mr.

Wynn applied for an adjournment until ;to'-day, in" consequence of Mr* Becknam being necessarily absent. -r-Adjourned accprdingly. , . . -•- ( ' J Indecent 1 Exposure. —Richard Dougherty' -pleaded guilty to a breach of the Municipal Police Act, and -Was fined 20a. and cpsts, in, default to suffer one week's imprisonment •with bard labour, ' - » Throwing Rubbish on the Stkeet. — j Louisa Day Was charged with a breach of the Municipal Police Act by throwing out a; quantity of rubbish on to Stiortland-street. , ] -^Defendant's husband 1 appeared, pleaded J guilty, and was fined 20s. and costs. Illegally SE J LLiffG Beer. — Lydia Loton was charged with a breach of the Licensing' Act,*lB63, by selling, atherhouge in Eden > Orescent, two bottles of beer on the night of May 4, without having a license to do so. ' Mr. Hesketh appeared on behalf of the de fenddnt, and Mr. Brookfield for the prosecution. — Robert Ternahan, detective, said : I have been in. defendant's house several times. She lives in Eden Orescent. Ladies ' and gentlemen assemble there in the evenings for dancing and other purposes. I was there on' the evening of the 4th May, accompanied by detective Murphy. I had reasons for watching the house. While doing so, I saw a man named Rowley enter the house. Soon , after he entered the house, we both went in. I saw defendant coining out of a bedroom with a glass of beer in his hand. I know it was beer, because I tasted it. We saw a ' bottle of beer on a chiffoniere, and another , bottle out of which the beer was emptied. Two tumblers were there with some beer 'in each, and a corkscrew in Rowley's hand. When defendant came in she said she had sent out for the beer. Rowley said he had often shouted there, and that the beer we saw was his shout. Defendant said she had sent a boy to the Royal Hotel for the beer. I am quite certain no one left the house from the time we saw Rowley enter the house until we found the beer being drunk. — By Mr. Hesketh : I went there that night from information I received that grog was being sold there. The reason we did not enter at first was because we wanted.to catch defendant committing a breach of the law. We went in when we heard the cork of a bottle drawn. — By Mr. Brookfield : I have already brought the nature of the house , under the notice of the Crown Solicitor. — Detective James Murphy gave corroborative evidence. — George Eowley said : I know the house occupied by defendant in Eden Crescent. I saw defendant there, and a girl named Alice McMahon.' I was in the dining- | room with defendant and the girl there. | The room is used both for a diningroom and bedroom. I had some beer there. I paid her 7s. 6d. to get what she liked in the ! liquor line. She brought two bottles of beer. It was immediately after my arrival that I gave the money to the girl. I don't know who went for the beer. Defendant was in the other sitting room when the beer was brought into my room. I dont know whether Alice McMahon gave the money to defendant. — By Mr. Mitforcl: When I gave the money to the girl I expected to get some kind of drink. It is not usual for "gentlemen" to ask back " change" in such houses. — Alice McMahon said : I live in defendant's house, in Eden Crescent. I was staying there on the 4th of May. I called defendant, and gave her 3s. 6d. to get some beer. She sent a boy to the Royal Hotel for the beer. He went out by the back door, and brought the beer. I am not aware that defendant keeps a stock of spirits in the house. The detectives came into the room about ten or fifteen minutes aftei I sent for the beer. — By Mr. M itford : I suppose the boy left the house hy the back door, but I did not see him do so.~ William Amos Clarke said : I am proprietor of the Royal Hotel. I charge Is. 6d. pei bottle for my beer. I know the boy in defendant's employment, who goes with one shoe off and one shoe on, and is blind in one eye. (Boy produced and identified.) I was in my bar on the 4th May from seven to ten o'clock in the evening. There was no beei sold that night between those hours to the boy now present, or to any one of defendant's girls. — Mr. Hesketh held there was not a sufficient case for him to prove thai defendant had or had not a license to sell beer. He held there was no case to replj to. — Mr. Brookfield held that there was sufficient evidence to show that there was a sale of beer, or that beer had been permitted to be sold. The whole evidence showec there was undoubtedly what was called t "plant." There was a prima facie case proved, and it was now for defendant to show that she had a license to sell the beei she wag charged with selling. — The Bench held that a sufficient case hae been made against defendant to necessitate her calling witnesses for the defence. — Mr. Hesketh called two witnesses for the defence, but, neither of them appearing, he applied for an adjournment. — Mr. Brookfield opposed the adjournment. — After some discussion it was decided to adjourn the Court until one o'clock. — At one o'clock the Court again resumed. — Mr. Hesketh, for ths defence, called a little boy about five or six years of age, whom the Magistrates refused to have sworn. He stated that he was sometimes sent to the lfcoyal Hotel for beerj but could not say when he was last sent on such a mission. — John Humphrey said : I am a waiter at the Royal Hotel. I remember Wednesday, the 4th May. Defendant is in the habit of sending for beer to the Hotel. On that night the little boy came and got two bottles of beer. I could not say at what time he came. It was some time between seven and eight o'clock. — In cross-examination by Mr. Brookfield, the witness made several contradictory statements. — William Amos Clarke contradicted the statements made by the boy Humphreys. — The Bench found the charge proved, and imposed a fine of £10 and full costs. BREACH OF THE MERCHANT SHIPPING Act, 1854. — Edward Bolgei was charged by Adam Main with a breach of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, by refusing to pay a balance of £6 as wages due to him a3 seaman on board the s.s. 'Tanranga.' — Mr. Bennett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wynn for the defence. — Adam Main deposed to having been engaged on the 30th April, at the rate of £6 per month, by Captain Boiger, and that he served until the Bth May, when he was ordered to go on shore by the captain. He had asked for his wages, but had not got them. — In cross-examination by Mr. Wynn^ plaintiff admitted having left the vessel against his captain's order.— Frederick Dillon and John O'Neil, seamen, also gave similar evidence as to the refusal of plaintiff to trim coals on board. — Mr. Wynn argued tb.H,t there was no case, but, if the magistrates thought so, he would call witnesses for the defence. — The Bench concurred in the same opinion, and dismiss7d the ease with costs. Another Case. — Captain Bolger was also charged with a similar offence by J&mes Meredith.— Mr. Bennett for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wynn for the defence. — Dismissed with costs. . . Breach of the Arms Act. — Benjamin Hill was charged by James Benstead with having committed a breach of the 28th section of the Arms Act by disposing of a doublebarrelled fowling-piece to one P. Yon der Alexander, Avithout having a license to do S o. Mr. Joy, LL.B., for the prosecution, and Mr. Wynn and Mr. Bennett for the defence. — Mr. Joy showed that the offence with which defendant was charged was a felony, and that even the giving away of arms without price came within the scope of the offence as contemplated in the Act. — James Benstead deposed : lam a restaurant* keeper in Queen-street, In the month of October last I v. aa the owner of a doublebarrelled fowling-piece, and had a license taken out for its purchase. (Gun and case produced and identified.) t On the 16th October I left Auckland for the Australian colonies, leaving the gun with defendant ; but did not sell it to him. Defendant was to take charge of my gun and dogs. On the 16th or 17th December I came back to Auckland, and saw defendant on my return. I inquired what he had -done with my gnn! l : He said he had left it in the country with a friend, but never, said he had sold it. Since then I have- often asked defendant to return f me' the gun* I then. jrat the matter into, the -hands of, the Commissioner oX Police. After,

convejrsing^fithjMr.< ITaughton, I laid .this information agatot defendant. "When l was absent, defendant had no fciH of sale over my ! property. When in' Sydney) 1 1' sent -a power of tit oroey to Mr.- Hughes, not to defendant. I sent Word to defendant to . sell the gun in iky absence,' but not without a license, and to send me .the money, lalso told him to sell'my dogs/ I" wrote, soJner letters to_defendant v/hen I ,was absent, 'Some of t them, were signed James Buxton, and some signed James Benstead. — David Evitt, deposed : I carry on business as a gunmaker in Queenstreet. The gun was in defendant's possession, at a pigeon match when he and a friend were present. Defendant admittedto me thatjthe gun belonged to Mr. Benstead. X repaired it next morning. Defendant and his friend came with the gun to be repaired, . and defendant ' paid' for the repairs'. — Frederick Yon der Alexander deposed : I am a settler at Waiuku. I know the . gun-case anct fowling-piece now produced. Both were in my possession about the 11th' of December iast. I eventually received the gun front defendant. I first saw it in possession of a. shoemaker and defendant, at Waiuktt, Defendant asked me to come to the shoemaker'shouse to receive , the gun. I presume that was his object. I had previously .paid defend dant money for the gun now produced, and which I then received. . I paid him Jt2, and gave him a promissory-note for £3, When I paid defendant .that amount I, understood it was the price'o^the gun. ' About a week afterwards he said' to me there was a difficulty about- the license, and asked me to keep the gun until he returned me the money. ■ I told him I 'did not want the' gun if ther« was any difficulty about it. I them kept the gun, — By Mr. Bennett : The promissory note haa been returned to me, I believe it was sent to me by defendant's wife= in a letter. After receiving the promissory note, I held the gun as security for the repayment of my £2. — James Naughton deposed : I am clerk and acting licenser ins H.M. Customs at Auckland. I produce th© dockets of licenses, of form A, issued from August to Decembei, 1869. I have searched these documents, and find defendant had no license issued to him during that period to sell a gun. — Accused declined to say anything. — Mr. Bennett addressed the Bench, and argued that a guilty knowledge must be shown ; and in the present case no such guilty knowledge had been proved. He thought the Bench would be perfectly justified in dealing with the case without sending it to a higher tribunal. He would ask that the case be dismissed. — 'The prisoner was committed to take his trial at next sittingg of the Supreme Court. — Mr. Bennett asked that bail be allowed — Bail allowed, defendant in £100, and two sureties of f5O each. The Court rose at 4 o'clock