Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before Messrs A, C. Begg and G. Bell, J.P.s.)

Drunkenness. —One first offender was convicted and discharged. John Woods (six previous convictions) was fined 20s, in default four days’ imprisonment; Elizabeth Lindsay (twenty-eight previous convictions), 30a, in default seven days’ imprisonment; while Hugh O'Donnell (one previous conviction) was fined 10s, in default forty-eight eight hours’ imprisonment. V AGRANOV, — Emma Parnell alias Ellis (eight previous convictions) was charged with having insufficient means of support. Accused pleaded guilty. Sergeant-major Bevin gave accused an extremely bad character, while Sergeant Geerin said that her house was “ a regular den,” and accused was in the habit of following men about.— Accused was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, with hard labor. More Juvenile Depravity. —/oAk Clark, aged twelve years, pleaded guilty to stealing three perambulator wheels, valued at 3s, the property of Half Wahrlick,— Sergeant Macdonnell said that accused, along with another boy, entered a shed at South Dunedin, pulled the wheels from the perambulator, and sold them for one shilling.— Accused’s father said that accused left his home on Thursday, and the present case was the result. Accused would sometimes steal things from the house. He could not properly attend to the boy and his business, and the consequence was that the former was running wild.—Mr Begg thought it was perfectly disgraceful for any parent to come into a Court and say that he could not control a boy like accused.—Accused’s father: I have beaten him again and again, until he is black and blue.—Mr Begg: Yes; but that is not the proper way to keep control over a boy.—Mr Bell: Does the boy go to school ?—The father replied that the lad would not go to school regularly. He would perhaps go to school one day and stay away for the rest of the week.—Mr Begg said that as it was accused’s first offence the Bench were inclined to deal leniently with him. It was distressing to see a boy of the age of accused being brought into Court to answer a charge of stealing. It was sometimes mainly owing to bad companions that young boys went astray, but in the present case it appeared that accused himself was of a very bad character. The Bench were disinclined to send accused to gaol, but would order him to receive six strokes with the birch rod, and hoped that it would act as a warning to him in the future.—To Sergeant Macdonnell: Who was it bought the articles from accused ?—Sergeant Macdonnell: A secondhand dealer at South Dunedin, your Worship. He was to have been here this morning, but has not attended.—Mr Begg : It is simply disgraceful that any man would buy things from a boy so young. The dealers are as much to blame as those who stole the articles, and more so. It is a pity that these second-hand dealers, who are in. the habit of receiving goods from boys so ycung, are not punished, for they certainly deserve it.

Maliciously Injuring Property. —The same accused, with James Maloney and George Smith, were then charged with maliciously destroying a fence at South Dunedin, owned by William Ings, doing damage to the extent of ss.—Sergeant Macdonnell said that Maloney and Smith, two of Clark’s companions, had run away after receiving summonses to attend at the Court. They had taken tickets to Burnside at the railway station, and doubtless intended to journey to the Taieri.—Mr Begg said the Bench would not proceed with the case in the absence of the other accused. They would issue a warrant for the arrest of the boys, who would doubtless have called at some farmers’ houses on the Taieri. The case would [J therefore be adjourned for a week.

By-law Cases.— For allowing cows to wander at large George Harrington was fined 2s fid, and Robert Muir Is, without costs. Joseph Harvey, for allowing a horse to wander at large, was fined 2s fid without costs ; while William Mitchell was mulcted in a like sum. A case against William Stewart was dismissed, there being some doubt as to ownership.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18890518.2.12

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 7910, 18 May 1889

Word Count
685

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 7910, 18 May 1889

Working