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.


CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs G. Wishart and J. F. Jones, J.P.s.) Drunkenness. Matthew Armor (one previous conviction) was fined 15s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. Disorderly Behvoiodr.— Annie Norris was charged with behaving in a riotous manner on the 15th inst —There was a similar charged against Maria Conway, who pleaded guilty,—Mr E. Cook appeared for Norris.—-Sergeant-major Bevin stated that the accused created a great disturbance in Stuart street, both girls fighting and making a great noise,—Both were sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. (Before Messrs J. Logan and J. P. Jones, J.P.s.) Robbery vrom a Dwelling,— Otto Kankein, a boy, was charged with breaking into the house of James Sutherland, Purakanui, on the 19th inst., and stealing therefrom one pair of trousers and other articles valued at L2 I4s.—Sergeant-major Bevin said that accused and another boy had escaped from the Industrial School and had entered the house of Mr Sutherland and taken the articles mentioned. The evidence against accused was very clear, but as the witnesses were not present he would ask for a remand until Tuesday next.—Remand granted accordingly. Robbery.— Jessie M l Ewen, Charles Price, and Willivm M l Kay were charged with stealing on the 11th inst. clothing and moneys amounting to L2l6s 6d, tho property of Matilda Robertson. Mr R. L. Stanford defended.—Sergeant-major Bevin explained that tho woman M'Ewcn was at present undergoing sentence in Dunedin Gaol, and the bearing of this partly-heard case, which was adjourned for the production of further evidence, was resumed, the prosecutrix continuing her evidence.—Mr Stanford, before cross-examining, asked their Worships to take down witness’s evidence, as he intended to charge her with perjury.—Witness, in reply to Mr Stanford, said that there was no one in the house with her. She never told a different story to the present one. The man Duggan, who was stated to have been in the house on the date mentioned, had never charged her with stealing L 6 or L 7. fie called on witness, however, and tried to prevent her from laying an Information. 8e promtoed to

make good the amount ifi&ged to hare beeir* stolen by the accused. Witness' never saw the accused on the evening of Monday, fhe10th inst.—The evidence of thtf womanGriffin was identical with her statements in* the previous hearing of the case.—Mr ford submitted that there was no evidence*}’ connect the accused with the robbery*! tfe* clothes and money. The accused had been in the house twice one or two days before the robbery was alleged to have been committed. The man Duggan had been in the house, and had complained to the accused of being robbed. If ever there was a case of perjury this was one—there wax no mistake about that.—Wishael Duggan said fee was at prosecutrix’s house on tho 9th inst, with LO 4s in his pocket. During the night he saw her handling the money, and in the morning the money was gone. The accused came to the bouse while he was there, and they had some drink together.—Detective M'Grath gave evidence as to prosecutrix complaining to him of her missing her things. Just as the woman Robertson was speaking to him the man Duggan came and told something of the story which ho had told m Court,—Mr Stanford said that tbo case should never have been brought into Cour* It was a most vindictive prosecution,— Tub ease wa» dismissed, RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S CODEX. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., E.M.) Thomson, Bridger, and Co. v. Johns Calder and William M'Laren. —Claim, USDs 2d, for goods sold and delivered. Mr Eosking appeared for plaintiffs.—ln this* previously-heard case further evidence was* taken, after which His Worship gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. John O’Leary v. Thomas Quill.—Claim, MS 12a 2d, fot dishonored promissory note, with interest on same, and goods supplied. Mr Callaway appeared for plaintiff.—This case was partly heard on May 20, and judgment was now given for L 25 Is 8d by default.

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

Bibliographic details

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY., Issue 7939, 21 June 1889

Word Count

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY. Issue 7939, 21 June 1889

  1. New formats

    Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.

  2. Hierarchy

    These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.

  3. Search

    Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.

  4. Search

    Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.

  5. Search facets

    Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.

  6. View selection

    Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.

  7. Tools

    Print, save, zoom in and more.

  8. Explore

    If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.

  9. Need more help?

    The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.