THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7827, 7 February 1889, Page 3

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Beforo E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

PiiUNKENNK.ss. — John Lambert (eighteen previous convictions) and 'llioman Keating were fined 53, in default twenty-four hourß'imprisonment ; a first oSeuder was convicted and discharged.

[Mr Fish, J.P., here took a seat on the Bench.l I)i:sriTUTE Children.— Thomas Richard IDoi'd Fitzijerald was brought before the C'Mirt as an illegitimate child whose mother was unable to support it. Sergeant-major Buvin said that tho case had been before the Couit on a previous occasion, but adjourned so that the police might make inquiries of the mother, with the view of taking proceedings against the father. The mother w.s in the Magdalen Asylum in Christchurch, and the polico had endeavored to get her to lay an information against the father, but by the rules of the asylum she could not leave that establishment.—Uis Worship thought the childmustbc sent to the Industrial School, but some attempt should he made to take proceedings against the »n»n who was said to be the father. The child would be committed to the Industrial School, to be brought up in the Roman Catholic religion.

William Bali;/, about six years of age, was iilso brought before the Court. Scrgeantmajot Bevin said that the child was illegitimate; that the mother had gone to ftreymonth and was unable to contribute to its support ; and that the grandparents were not in a position to keep it any longer. "ilia Worship thought it would be better to adjourn the case for a week, and represent to the Benevolent Institution authorities the expediency of paying the grandparents, say 4s per week, to continue supporting the child ; but the police said the boy would be better away from the grandparents, and the Bench thereupon ordered him to be committed to the Sehool, to be brought up in the Presbyterian form of faith.

Alexander (10), George (S), Henry (G), William (3), and .-17/raf Leonard Blue (2 yours) next engaged the attention of the Bench. Sergeant-major Bevin said that the father and the eldest son of the family were in gaol, and the mother had left Dunedin, beins; unable to obtain work here owing to the lather's misconduct, and there was no one to support the children, who were running about the streets half naked, and the elder children becoming addicted to thieving. Two of the family, older tb-m those now before the Court, were in the Industrial School, and their Worships now behold the remnant of the family. The older boy, Alexander, was quite drunk in the streets the other clay, wherever he 2<,t the drink from. The police had got Mrs iVfkor to look after the youngsters in the meantime ; but that was only a temporary arrangement, and the children would be far better off in the Institution.—llia Worship : That ia not the point; there are hundreds of children in the country of whom the same might be said.—Sergeant-major Bevin : But there, is no one to support them. —Constable Orubk3hank described the deplorable condition in which he found the children and the place where they lived.—His Worship remarked that if he sent these children to the Institution they would cost the country LlO4 a-year, and the question was whether the Benevolent Institution could not make some better arrangement. —Sergeant-major Kevin was informed that the Trustees had declined to interfere. His Worship thought it war; advisable that a formal request should ba made, and the case was ordered to stand down- till later on so as to allow of that being done. Word was subsequently received that the Benevolent Trustees did not wish to interfere, and the children would be committed to the Industrial School, and brought up in the Presbyterian form of faith.

Selling Bkek ox Sunday. Benjamin Bern, charged with selling beer at the Wharf Hotel at 0.10 a.m. on Sunday Inst, pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr Solomon.—Mary Trainor, a married woman, deposed that she went into the hotel last Sunday morning and saw her husband there in company with two other men who had glasses in front of them. Mrs Bern was in the bar. Witness went away with her husband, who had left home sober but was then about half drunk. Hugh Trainor admitted that he was in the Wharf Hotel on Sunday morning, but denied that be hud any drink there. His wife went iuto tho hotel without any reason, gave him a flap in the eye, and out he went. That was all he knew of tho matter.— Sergeant major Bevin said that that was nil the evidence he had to offer. His Worship: Ca3e dismissed. Alleijkh Inhecijncy.— Luke Clyde Ha:Jii( was charged on information that on the 2(ilh January, at St. Clair, he unlawfully and wilfully did do a grossly indecent act within the view of a public place. Mr Fraser appeared to prosecute on behalf of the police; Mr Haggitt for defendant.—Mr Fraser said that the information was laid under section 24 of the Police Offences Act, ISS4. The road skirting the ocean bath was Hardly frequented by women and children on fine afternoons. Various conveniences were offered at the baths—a bather could get a box for 2d, or he could utilise the free shed—but many preferred to undicoa on the rocks. These rocks could be used without any offence by the exercise of very slender precautions. On this occasion the defendant had proceeded to dress himself with a total absence of any precaution, and bad offended against the common laws of decency. The attention of the police was directed to his conduct, and hence the present charge. He (Mr Fraser) would prove that the exposure was unjustifiable, unnecessary, and wilful wilful in that it was within the gaze of women and children. Better far that the baths should be closed than that they should be made the means of corrupting women and children. He should first call evidence that the bath was a public place within the meaning of the Act. He did not know whether that would be admitted. Mr TTaggitt: Certainly not. We admit nothing. Your statement is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end.—Mr Fraser said that his learned friend knew, of course, that he (Mr Fraser) spoke from his instructions, and he would therefore take no offence at that remark. Mr Haggitt: I know that.— Mr Fraser then proceeded to call the following evidence: Martin Pearce, town clerk of Caversharn, produced the « Gazette ' vesting the baths in the Corporation, and said that the road skirting the baths was a public road largely frequented by the public—Sergeant Macdonnell was at the baths on the day in question, and saw defendant and his brother undressing on the rocks at the further end of the bath. There was a great crowd about the baths. On coming out of the water defendant unnecessarily exposed himself, gazing meanwhile at some women and children who were standing on the upper road, two chains and a-half from where defendant was. Witness spoke to defendant shortly afterwards, saying that hemight be summoned, and he replied "All right sir," putting hi« fingers to his nose. There was plenty of room in the free shed at the time. To Mr Haggitt: This took place on the 2Cth Janir.ry, and witness did not lay the information until a week afterwards. _ A great many other bathers were also drying themselves on the rocks—a dozen or more. Defendant had trunks on when he went into the water. Witness and Constable Parker were in uniform, and could be seen by defendant. The women did not turn their heads or go away; they remained by the fence. WitncßS was the first to notice the defendant's action, and called the attention of Constable Parker and Mr Donaldson. Witness did not speak to defendant until he was fully d reused and coming away from the bath.—John Donaldson, hotelkeeper, was at the baths at 4.110 on tho 26th of last month, and his attention was directed by the sergeant to " a chap who was rather careless in putting his clothes on."—Mr Haggitt: Did this young man seem to you to be wilfully and indecently exposing himself?— WitncßS : No, there was nothing of that, fie wai simply putting his shirt on.—Mr Fraser: Did you never express a contrary opinion? Did you not comment at the time about the women and children on tht bank?— Witness: I passed some jokes about it.—Mr Fraser: But we don't want jokes ; we want evidence.—Witness, continuing, said in answer to Mr Fraßer that his jokes had no reference to defendant; but

lo altogether another matter. He first knew last night that he was to give evidence in this case. Constable Parker spoke to him. Defendant's brother also saw him last night.—Constable Parker's evidence was in the main corroborative of that given by Sergeant Macdonnell.— Richard Grimmett, temporary custodian of the baths, said that at half-past four on the afternoon in question there was plenty of accommodation in the shed and boxes.—Mr Haggitt submitted that there never was such a wretched case aS this offered before on a serious charge such as this was. The charge was that a grossly indecent act had been committed in the presence of the public. And what was the evidence ? That two policemen saw a boy coming out of a bath, wipe himself with a towel, with a short shirt on. If there had been any foundation for a charge of this nature, where there were so many people about who must have been shocked by the exposure (if there had been any exposure), a case of this kind would not have been brought before the Court on the unsupported evidence of two policemen. Ho (Mr Haggitt) should ask their Worships to decide as a matter of law that the case did not come within the meaning of the [ section under which it was l;iid ; but that ■ was not his defence. Not only did no boy ever bathe without; momentarily exposing himself in the way defendant did, but no man ever did. It was impossible for any person to bathe without momentarily exposing himself to prying eyes. He (Mr Haggitt) should prove by witnesses whose testimony was beyond the shadow of question that on this occasion the dressing rooms and shed werecrowded, and that there was hardly room in the water for those who were bathing ; these boys did as thousands of others did—they went in from and came out on the rocks. If people went where others were bathing thny must expect to Bee naked bodies. Women who went along there to see men in trunks would be precious little shocked to sen men without trunks. Their Worships had it in evidence that these baths led to nowhere. There was no need for women and children to pass them to go to their residences, and if they chose to pass them when men were bathing there they did it at their own risk, and were not entitled to any consideration. Learned counsel went on to contend that the section of fie Act under which the information was laid provided for sentencing an offender to a year's hard labor, and also to be flogged, and it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to include within that section a case of carelessness on the part of a bather. Ho should call evidence to show that there was no act of indecency, and the case would resolve itself into this: that at the most this young man was careless—not wilfully or knowingly careless—in pulling his shirt over his shoulders, and Sergeant Macdonnell might have seen something which bis wicked mind construed into a wilful evasion of the law. If there had been a breach of decency, it had been committed under the very eyes of two policemen whom defendant must have known wore looking at him. The first witness he called was John White, solicitor, who said that at the time defendant and his brother were bathing the baths were very full, and, so far a3 witness could sec, the private boxes were all full, and the free shed seemed to be full of boys. Accused was dressed quicker than his brother, and lighted a cigarette and stood by while his brother dressed. Witness jumped into the wotrr as they walked away. He saw nothing approaching indecency in the conduct of defendant, and from his knowledge of him would say that he was decidedly incapable of doing anything of the sort. Witness did not hear anyone talking about nn act of indecency. To Mr I''ruser: Defcndcnt's overshirt was on when witness first saw him. To the Bench: Witness saw only one girl on the road. If there bad been women and children on the road witness must have seen them. It would not be possible for the police, standing in front of the shed, to say whether there were any women or children on the upper road.—Saul Solomon, solicitor, said that it was quite common for men and boys to dress and undress on the rocks in preference to going into the boxes. It was a fact that the road was frequently crowded with women while men were dressing and undressing. To Mr Fraser: He had never known a case in which men conducted themselves indecently, —Thomas Bennett, carpenter, was bathing with the Hazletts, and was on the rocks with them. He saw no act of indecency on defendant's part, though standing within ten yards of him. To Mr Fnuicr : Witness was not looking to see if he would do anything wrong.—William Bennett, brother of last witness, was standing five or six yards from defendant, and saw nothing wrong.— Wm. Thomas Hnzlett, defendant's brother, was bathing with hisbrother, and they dressed together side by side, facing the water. Defendant was dressed first. They both dressed faster than usual, on account of the cold. Defendant was not more than two minutes dressing, and certainly did cot expose himself. Witness saw no women or children on the upper road. He did not see defendant put his finger to his nose when the Bcrgcant 3poke to'him. To Mr Fraser : Defendant did not take his trunks oh" until putting both shirts on.—J. T. Mackerras had known defendant from his infancy, and could say that he was decidedly a modest youth, and one that was exceedingly unlikely to do what he was accused of.—Mr Haggitt proposed to put defendant himself in the box, with the permission of the Bench, but His Worship said there was no power to allow that to be done.—Mr Fraser wished to recall witness Grimmett, but this also was not permitted.—Mr Fraser then asked whether it was necessary for him to reply to the argument that the section under which the information was laid did not apply to the case.—The Bench considered that that was not necessary.— After a brief consultation with Mr Fish, His Worship said that the evidence was very contradictory. A possible explanation of this might be that it was very ea.sy to identify a person when dressed, but there might be some difficulty in identifying a naked man. However, the Bench were not satisfied that the case had been made out. They thought this, however, that the bylaws made by the Caversham Borough were not adequate to meet cases of indecency. They might make a by-law to the effect that any person offending, either through negligence or carelessness, would be liable to a penalty. The case would be dismissed. Maintenance.— Ann Thompson, a married woman, was summoned to show cause why she should not contribute towards the support of her mother, Margaret Campbell. Mr Webb appeared for defendant, who pleaded poverty.—After hearing evidence, the Bench decided that defendant was not in a position to contribute.

Thomas Campbell, who did not appear, was also summoned by Margaret Campbell. —Defendant was ordered to pay 5s per week.

Affiliation. — John Edward Galbrai/h, who did not answer to his name, was charged by Elizabeth Lees Stewart with being the father of her child, and refusing to provide for its support. Mr Fraser appeared for the informant.—An order was made for the payment of the costs attending the birth, and 6s per week. Assault.— Samuel Wtlb was charged by his wife Fedas Webb with assault and using threatening language.—Defendant asked for j an adjournment, as there was a prospect of adjusting the differences that had arisen.— Informant made no objection, and the case was adjourned for a week.