THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7471, 15 March 1888, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,

(Before Messrs W. Hutchison and R, Wilsoi, rf.P.s.)

Donald M‘Gregor v. William James. — Claim, LlB 15s Ba, for goods supplied. Mr A. J. Bathgate appeared for the plaintiff.— The sum of LlO had been paid since service of the summons, and judgment was given for the balance, with costs. Mason and M'Knight v. E. Guy.—Claim, L2, balance due on a Family Bible. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default, with costs.

Same v. G. Parkes.—Claim, L2 10s, for books sold. The defendant had paid LI since issue of the summons, and judgment was given for the balance (LI 10s) and costs.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Mr E. H. Carew, R.M., and Mr G. E. Eliott, J.P.) Drunkenness.— Henry Mikham (on bail) did not answer to his name, and an order was made that ho he served with notice to appear on Saturday to show cause why his recognisances should not be estreated ; but defendant put in an appearance a few minutes later, and, his excuse being accepted, he was let off with a fine of ss, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. Timothy Byrne, against whom there were twentyeight previous convictions, was fined 10s, with the alternative of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. Neglected Children. Afaggk (7i), Sarah and Lizzie Sleivarl (1£), were brought before the court as having no means of subsistence within the meaning of section 16, sub-section 1 of the Industrial Schools Act, 1882.—Sergeant O’Neill said that the father of these children died in the Timaru Hospital two months ago ; and the mother, who used to live in King street, had been committed to the Seacliff Asylum. In searching the house he (the sergeant) had found a small bag containing the sum of L 23 17s 6d.—An order was made for the committal of the children to the Industrial School, to be brought up in tho Presbyterian form of faith.

Raffling a Vvw.—llwjh Ross and Sarah Ross were charged that on the Ist inst. at Anderson Bay they did unlawfully conduct a certain scheme by which a prize, to wit a pony, was competed for by a mode of chance, to wit the throwing of dice. The charge was brought under the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881. Mr White, who appeared for accused, said that he would plead guilty.— In answer to the Bench Inspector Weldon said that the evidence he was prepared to adduce would show that Mr Boss had a pony which he wished to dispose of, and that he raffled it.—Mr Carew pointed out that there were two defendants. Weldon replied that he did not propose to proceed against Mrs Ross. Mr White would like to say that Mr Ross was not present at the time of the raffle, and had no interest in it. There had been no complaint against Mr Ross previous to this, and he would take care that such a thing should never take place again.—Mr Carew remarked that if what Mr White had said were true it amounted to a denial that the offence had been committed.—Mr White said that ho did not take up that position: he admitted that Mrs Ross had been present.—Mr Carew said that the Bench would hear the other charge. This was to the effect that defendant, on the Ist inst., being the holder of a publican’s license for and in respect of certain premises known as the Anderson Bay Hotel, did unlawfully suffer an unlawful game, to wit the throwing of dice, to be carried on in his licensed premises.—Mr White asked that, as accused had pleaded guilty to one charge, he be not proceeded against on the second charge. It was a question also, ho would submit, whether the alleged offence was an unlawful game.—Mr Carew said that under the Gaming Act it was made an unlawful game. —Mr White replied that it had been held that a lottery was not a game.— Mr Carew said that that would be under the old Police Ordinance. He thought there was a case in which it had been held that pak-a-pu was a game.—Mr White submitted that this was a different thing from pak-a-pu. A lottery could not be called a game. It might be gaming but not a game—that was a distinction which had been drawn by Mr Justice Johnston, and the case could if necessary be cited.—Mr Carew took it that the question was what defence could be made to the charge; defendant could not ask that the case be withdrawn.— Mr White said that the only reason he had for asking lor a withdrawal was that if defendant were recorded as guilty there would be an endorsjment on the license.— In answer to the Bench, Inspector Weldon said that the first offence, in which defendant had pleaded guilty, was the more serious one of the two. The police had no objection to the second charge being withdrawn. They could, however, if necessary, prove that Mr Rosa was in and about the house at the time the lottery was going on. —Mr Carew said that the Bench were in an embarrassing position. If Mr White were to plead guilty they could deal with the matter, but what was put forward as an extenuation of the offence was really a denial of the facts alleged. —Mr White: Well, then, we plead guilty,— After consultation with Mr Eliott, Mr Carew said that the Bench would now deal with the first charge. Were there any previous convictions ?—lnspector Weldon answered in the negative.—Mr Carew then intimated that defendant would be fined Lo and costs —that was in respect to the one defendant that Inspector Weldon had said he would proceed against. The costs of court would be 13s, and witness’s expenses 6s. In default of payment of the fine, distress; in default of distress, one calendar month’s imprisonment. He (His Worship) would at the same time point out that under the Act any person convicted of managing or conducting, or assisting in managing or conducting a lottery, was liable to bo fined L2OO ; and for a second offence, besides this penalty, was liable to six months’ imprisonment. The other case, with the consent of the police, would be allowed to be withdrawn.

Vagkancv. —George Creagh or Richardson was charged with having insufficient lawful means of support. Acting-detective Maddern said that accused came from the North with a gang of men who instituted games at racecourses, and since then had done no work, being the companion of bad characters of both sexes.—Constables Crawford and Parker gave corroborative evidence. Accused said that ho came here with a theatrical company and had fallen out of work. He had since received money from his mother at Wellington ; and went round the country race meetings backing horses and looking after them whenever he got the chance of a job. He was a draper and tailor by trade, but had been unable to obtain work.—Mr Carew :We are satisfied that you do not get your living honestly. You will be sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment in Dunedin Gaol. [Mr Eliott here left the Bench.]

Maintenance.— A charge was preferred against William Richmond of disobeying an order of the court by which he was ordered to pay 5s per week towards the support of his wife.— Defendant said that he had just completed a job, and would be paid on Saturday, The case was therefore adjourned until Thursday next to give defendant an opportunity of complying with the order. The case of Powell v. Pouxll was adjourned for a fortnight. Oliver v. Oliver was a case in which William Wilson Oliver was charged with leaving his wife and three children without means of support.—Elizabeth Oliver said that her husband had been away from her for five years, and had not written for eighteen months. There were three children. She had heard that he was earning Us a day day managing a mill. The parting took place at Timaru, complainant coming to Dunedin to her mother and accused going to Christchurch to look for work.—An order was made requiring accused to contribute 4s weekly towards the support of each of the three children.