POLICE COURT.—Saturday [Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXXI, Issue 5700, 20 December 1875, Page 3

POLICE COURT.— Saturday [Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M.]

Dill XKEN'Nl.SS. — Hog.um (.1 M.1011), and Kicli.uil How.irth, weic final ."is. .nul costs with the alternative of 21 lunus imprisonment with li.ucl laboui. Vauhancy. —John Bui lull was sent to prison foi one month with hard laboui- for ha\ -lig nude himself amenable to the penalties of the Vagrant Act by haVng been convicted of diunkcnncsu threo times within three months. A long 1'stof pievious convictions tig.iinst liim w.n pi oved by tlio Clerk of the Court. A QyAKitKLSOME Man.— AVilliam B. tfpcncei, for behaving Avith intent to provoke a bie.ich of tho pence, to which charge he pleaded guilty, wai fined 20>. with li. Gd. costs, or in default to go to prison for 14 days with hard labour. Larckny.— Patrick Ready pleaded not 'guilty to a charge of stealing a spaluing hammer worth 7s. Gd., tho property of Edw in Thomas Powley, on tho 14th inst. Constable Dews deposed to having been offered the hammer for sale by the prisoner who was drunk.— Thomas Powley deposed that the prisoner had worked for him on the 15th and lGth. The hammer produced was one which had been lent to him, and for which he was responsible. The prisoner had no business to offer it for sale. The witness here informed his Worship that ho had known the prisoner 28 years, and had never known him guilty of such a thing before. Ho did not believe he would have douo it had ho been sober. — Prisoner called Sub-Inspector Tardy, who deposed that the man was demented from the effects of liquor. He was a very harmless man when sober.— Tho prisoner said his place was the bush ; he was lost in town.— The Bench dismissed him with a severe caution, on the understanding that he would at once leave town. ■\Vikk Threatening. — Thomas Mulvaney pleaded not guilty to a charge of threatening his wife, from which threat she was in bodily feai . The prosecutrix deposed that defendant said on tho Kith that he would " do for" her, and for her .son. He was under the influence of liipior at tho time. He had taken the pledge l.i tely, but had broken out again. The prisoner hail hern bound over to keep the peace on a fouaor occasion. He promised to leave the town at once if he was let off. He had no intention of carrying out bin threats. — Inspector J*i oh mi naM that tho same promise had hcen in iile hcfoip, hut hid not been kept.— The Jieiuh took his word that ho would leave town within five minutes, and would not return for six months, and dismissed him upon his engaging to pay 17s. Cd. coats within n month, binding him over in his own recognisance for £50 to keep tho peace for six months. Alleged Forgino and Uttering.— "William Ciossloy wu charged with forging and uttering ■a cheque upon the Back of New South Wales for £10 with intent to defraud Mmsts. Dunningham and King, on the 15th December— On the application of Inspector Brohom, he was remanded till the 28th December for the production of Mr. T. Crossley, of Tauranga, whose name the cheque purported to bear. Breach ov the Railway Regulations.— Edward Dance win charged with a breach of the Railway Regulations by riding outside a cauitgo without the consent of tho manager. — Mr. Joy appeared for the defendant, who did not himself appear, and naked for an adjournment till Wednesday. Mr. Hcsketh appealed for the prosecution. — His Worship s.iid that in cases of non-appearance to a summons, he made a h.ibit of issuing a warrant. — Mr. Joy said he supposed that defendant had missed tho only train from Drui/, or he might bo ill. — His Worship determined to hear the case ex parte. — Mr. Joy declined under these ciicumstances to do mote than watch the caie. — Mr. Hcsketh put in various Acts healing upon railway byeIiiwi, and c.illi'd Joseph Henry Holmes, ticket collector on the Auckland and Mercer Railway, who deposed that on the 14th December defendant was u passenger by the 3.30 train from Auckland to Drury. On leaving Penrose tho defendant was standing on tho verandah of tho carriage. The guard and witness told him to go inside, as th.it was the bye-law. Ho said he would not. They asked him for his name, which he refused to give. # Ho remained three or four nrinuW. The train was in motion all the time.-- -To his Worship : Ho told us at Papa-kui-a that his name wan Dance. He had j,t\ en that nanio, also, on the way-bill for a dog that he was taking by the train.— Samuel Mai k will, i gaiud of tho train, corroborated the evidence of the proviouH witness. As guard he had no power to peimit a p -asengor to.stay on the vci aiidah, neither had the ticket-taker.— Augustus Vane. 1 Macdonald, General Manager of the railway, deposed that he had not given authority to the defendant io travel on the verandah. No one at present in Auckland, except witness, could havo given such authority — The Bench found defendant guilty, but before passing sentence would wish to hear the particular* of a second charge which appeared ou the sheet, viz., persisting in taking dogs into a passenger carriage. This charge was thon gone into. — Joseph H. Holmes deposod that defendant, on the 14th December, w.u a passenger bjr a first class ciuriagc, and had a dog in tho carriage. Witness told him he was not allowed to carry a dog in the carriage. Witness took the dog, and put it into tho break-van. Defendant got hold of it, and tried to take it away from witness. When the train reached l'npakura, witness found that defendant had another dog with him in the carriage. Dofcndant bad taken tickets for tho dogs, but had not delivered them to the gu-ml to take charge of, as required by tho bye-laws. — Samuel Markwell corroborated the previous evidence, but stated that the dog which had been tied up in the break van had twice bitten through the rope hy wliich it )m\ been fastened, and got away, so that it could not be delivered to the defendant. — His Worship i>ointod out that the otl'ouce, as given in the clause, was "persisting in taking a dog into tho carriage," whereas the evidence nhowad that ho had only persisted in keeping it iu when he had got it there.— Mr. Hcsketh argued that from the fact of the defendant booking tho dogs it might be inferred that he persisted in taking it iu, but he had notioeil tho difficulty arising from tho wording of the Act.— His Worship wiid thcro was no doubt the taking of dogs in the passenger carriages was a great nuisance. He thought the ofTcnco was proved in both cases, and should order defendant to pay 20s. fine for each offence and costs — in the first case £3 10s. , and in the second £3 7s. (id., to bo levied by distress. Sabbath-bueakixc— Charles Duudas was charged with prosecuting his ordinal y work on Sunday, tho 12th December, such work not being of necessity nor charity. — He pleaded necessity, but on the advice of his Wumhip, who pointed out that pleading gu'lty would involve only the penalty of 5s. fine ami t'n. <"><1. costs, ho withdrew tho ple.i of not guilt}, .iiid submitted to tho fine.