R.M. Court.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5161, 5 March 1888, Page 3

R.M. Court.

THIS DAY,

(Before G. A. Preecc, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Thomas Irwin pleaded guilty to having been found drunk last Saturday, and was fined 5s and costs, in default -IS hours' imprisonment with hard labor. David Collins alia* Murphy similarly i charged, was fined 5s and costs, with the usual alternative. William Harding, was charged (1) with drunkenness, and (1) with unlawfully resisting the police in the execution of their duty. On the first charge he was fined 5s and costs, in default 48 hours' imprisonment, aad for tho second offence ho was fined £2 10s, with costs, in default 1-1-days' imprisonment with hard labor. FORGERY. Charles Stevens alias John Irwin alia,* Irwin Stevens was charged with having on the 3rd March, at Napier, feloniously, with intent to defraud, offered, uttered, disposed of, andputoff.acertain order for thepayment of £8, well knowing tho same to be forged. Prisoner was remanded till tho 12th instant. REFUSING TO UUIT PREMISES. George Nenlo was charged with refusing to quit a house the property of the Charitable Aid Board when asked to do so. j Mr Carlilo appeared for the prosecution and said the Board had no desire to press the ease for a penalty. Mr Noalo had agreed to leave the house to-d:iy. The R.M. said bo would remand the case till to-morrow morning defendant in the meantime to leave the premises. JUVENILE OFFENDERS. Charles E. Palmer, 9 years of age, and William Smith, 7 years and 9 months, were charged with having, on the 4th February Inst, stolen from tho shop of ono Alexander Rule the sum of 1 Is -id. Mr Cornford appeared for the two lads.. Inspector Sullen said this was a melancholy prosecution, the lads being charged with having three times entered the premises of Mr Rule, and stolen therefrom money each time. The R.M. said the lads wero charged with a criminal offence, one for which they could be committed for trial. If the parents did not object he would deal with the lads summarily, or the parents could have them tried by a jury. The parents of the boys preferred to have them dealt with summarily.

The R.M. said he would hear the facts of the case.

Inspector Bulleu said Mr Rule carried on business in Hastings-street. He did not live on the premises, nor did any person in his employ. The promises extended to the beach, whero there was a back entrance. Iv the kitchen there was a window fastened by a catch. In consequence of certain discoveries a watch was kept, and ou Sunday morning the lads were seen to lift up the window and enter the premises, from which they took certain sums of mony. Tho boys, when discovered, made certain statements inculpating some other boys. With regard to the lad Russell it was only a small matter of one shilling, but he thought it was necessary that the case should bo brought before the Court. Herbert Bear was then charged, together with the other two lads, with having on the 19th February last stolen the stum of £2 from the same place, and also 7s Id, tho property of Alexander Rule. Mr liick appeared for the accused. Mr Cornford addressed the Court on behalf of his client*. They felt the gravity and responsibility which rested upon the Court when chiirges such as these wero brought before the "Bench.• Tho case was made more previous by the circumstance that money was taken. It was, he thought, the duty of the owner to have protected it. It appeared that the fruithad been tampered with, but ho extremely regretted that the money should also have been tampered with. To commit them to gaol he thought would be fatal to the children, as well as inflicting distress upon their families. Ho quoted the Act dealing with such cases. With regard to thathe hoped His Worship would not for one minute think that he was attempting to diminish in any way the gravity of the case, but with regard to the punishment proposed to be inflicted by tha said section of tho Act he hoped His Worship would be satisfied with tho fact, that the parevts of his clients had inflicted due, sufficient, and salutary punishment upon the children. He thought that the stigma of a police Hogging might be dispensed with. He hoped His Worship would not send them to gaol, and consider the disgrace if they wero sent to prison. Mr Dick stiid he*h«d not very much more to add to Mr Cornford's remarks. There were cases brought before the Court where the children were taken out of the guardianship of parents, who the Court considered were unable to control the children. Tho case was not of that description. Here the case was quite different. He asked His Worship to leave the matter in the hands of the parents. It would b» as painful for them us the children, if tho latter were left in the hands of a constable. The R.M. said this was a very painful case indeed. Most of these cases that came before tho Court, he might-, say, were the result of parents allowing their children to go out at night. This case differed from that respect. Parents were far too negligent in permitting their children to run about the streets at night, without anyone to control them, and that being the case could we wonder at the children taking a criminal course: Tho law bearing upon this point was brought in a long time ago, in tho reign of ono of tho early kings, William ih*i" Conqueror, and he thought that ;he Curfew Law would apply well in this .reneration. Ho would say that children waudt-red about at night, which was most dis'T.U'eful, aye, and even young girls were permitted to do the same. In this oaso the oft'enco was committed early in the morning, and of course he could not say whether tho children were allowed out at iii"ht: that might have been the case. He called upon the three lads, Palmer, Smith, and Bear. They had been convicted of an offence, on which he would like to comment before ho passed sentence upon them. Through thisactioiithiiv had not only brought thomseivesinto trouble, but also their parents. They had caused their parents great distress by being publicly charged with an ofl'ncec for which they might have been imprisoned for a long term. It was not his intcution of imprisoning them, but he hoped that_ m the future they would not take anything that did not belong to them. There was no cause for them to steal ; they did not require to do that, as they had plenty ut home. The lad Palmer would be sentenced to receive four strokes with the birch rod on each charge. Smith was a much younger boy. ;uid would receive three strokes wi*h tinbirch rod on each charge. Bear, 'who was a much older boy would receive six strokes on each charge. Arthur Russell was then charged with having on the 19th February taken from one William Smith the sum of one shilling, knowing the same to be stolen. Mr Dick appeared for the boy, and addressed the Court on his behalf.

The boy was ordered to receive six strokes with the birch rod.