THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7181, 7 April 1887, Page 2

THE COURTS —TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT, (Before Messrs’E. H. Carew, R.M., D. Brent, Mayor of) Maori Hill, and G. B. Fliott, J.P.s.) Drunkenness. —James Thompson and William Templeton were convicted and discharged. Breach of the Licensing Act .—Alfred Qaisford , licensee of the Queen’s Arms Hotel, was charged with unlawfully selling liquor at 8 a.m. on Sunday, the 3rd April.—Mr Solomon, who appeared for the defendant, admitted the sale, hut said that the circumstances of the case would show that the defendant ought to be ex-cused.-—Sergeant Hanlon deposed that last Sunday morning he visited the Queen’s Arms Hotel, accompanied by Constable Madden, Ho found two men in the bar having beer and “shandygaff ” respectively. Witness told tho defendant that very likely ho would have to account for a breach of the law, and ho said to his barman : “Did tho men not say they were travellers?” Witness did not hear any reply from tho barman, but the men denied that they had said anything of tho sort. Cross-examined : Prior to the defendant appearing on the scene witness had a conversation with the men and the barman. Tho barman said that lie had been told that they were travellers. Tho men, however, said they were not, but explained that they had come from Brighton the day previously and slept at the Globe Hotel. —Constable Madden gave corroborative evidence. —Mr Solomon said that lie had only the evidence of tho barman as against the two policemen, and ho recognised that after their united testimony it would be useless to put the barman in the box —The police intimated that the defendant had not been previously convicted, but though he closed his house promptly it was disorderly during legal hours. Mr Solomon said it was a very strange thing that the police should bring a charge like this before the Court and allow all tho leading hotels in the City to serve liquor when they liked. —Mr Carew said that if the Bench inflicted heavy penalties in every case which came before them they might have a deterrent effect. —Tho defendan* was fined L 5 and costa. The Industrial School.— Mary, Margaret, Agnes, and Frederick Whittct were committed to the Industrial School. —It was explained that their mother had been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment at tho last criminal sessions of the Supreme Court, and that their father was in tho hospital suffering from cancer of the tongue.

Maintenance. —Ardrcw Cullen was charged with failing to support his wife, Mary Ann Cullen. Mr Catomore appeared for tho complainant, and Mr Stanford for the defendant.— The case was dismissed. The Fraud on the Benevolent Institution.— Michael Coleman was charged, on the information of Alfred Clulee, with having, on the 26th March, by means of false pretences, obtained an order for L2 12s fid, with intent to defraud the Otago Benevolent Institution contributors. Mr J. A. Cook appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Hodge for the defence. — Mr Cook, in opening tho case, said that the charge was brought under section 88 of the Larceny Act. The accused had stated that his wife had died, and that he had no means whatever of burying her; that he had not done any work for tome time; and had no means whatever. The secretary referred the matter to the chairman of tho Institution (Mr Solomon), to whom the man made the same statement. An order was in consequence given to him on Messrs A. and T. Inglis for a funeral. It was afterwards discovered that he had been employed at the Taieri, and also at Maori Hill at 7s a day, a month before his wife’s death, LG or L 7 keing due to him by tho Council. —At tho suggestion of Mr Carew it was decided to hear the case under the clause of the Police Offences Act which referred to imposition on charitable institutions. —Alfred Clulee, secretary of the Benevolent Institution, deposed : The accused came to me on the morning of the 26th March, ami said lie wished to get an order for tho funeral of his wife. He said lie had no moans; that he had been brought downmountry to attend to a sick wife; that ho was out of work at the present time, and also that he had been to two undertakers, and could not get them to bury his wife. I declined to give tho order until I saw the chairman of the Trustees, I went for the chairman, and the accused repeated the same story to him. Ho said he nns unable to pay for his wife’s burial, and he could not even agree to pay for it by instalments, in consequence of his being so much in debt. He was asked whether he was in woi k, and he said no. An order was then given to him, as the woman had been dead since Thursday. It was an order on Messrs A. and T. Inglis for a funeral, the contract price of which was L2 12s fid.—Abraham Solomon deposed: I am chairman of the Benevolent Institution. I recollect meeting tho accused at the office. He told me that his wife had died recently; that tho body lay unburied, and he had no means of providing a funeral. Ho said ho was utterly destitute, heavily in debt, and that ho had been out of work for some time; that he had been compelled to leave his work in the country to attend to his sick wife. Ho appeared a respectable man, and, influenced by his representations, I gave the order produced for the funeral. It is an unusual thing to give orders of tho kind, and it was only on account of his desperate circumstances, as represented by him, that I gave the order,—Alfred Wynne, manager of the funeral department at Messrs A. and T. Inglis, gave evidence as to supplying a funeral in accordance with the order produced. Ciost-cxamincd : Accused’s mother got extra furnishings supplied for the coffin.— Edward Clarke, town clerk of Maori Hill, stated that the accused had been working for the Borough previous to the 2Cth. His wages were 7s a-day, and LC odd was due him. Ho could have got tho money on Tuesday, the 29th. He was not discharged on the Saturday, but was still in tho employment of the Borough. —Mr Hodge urged that the accused had really been guilty of no imposition, for at the time lie applied to Mr Clulee ho was temporarily destitute and could get no undertaker to bury his wife. After the funeral he had expressed his willingness to refund tho Institution the price of it. The real fact of the matter was that his father-in-law had undertaken to see about the funeral, and had neglected to do so, tho consequence being that the accused suddenly found himself in a fix.—Tho accused was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment.