CITY POLICE COURT. (Before E. 11. Cnrew, Esq.. R.M.) Drunkenness. For this offence three first offenders were convicted and discharged, while one (for whom Mr.T. F. M. Fraser appeared) who failed to appear in answer to the chargd was fined 10s, in default fortyeight hours' imprisonment. Caroline Williams, an old offender, was fined a similar amount with a like alternative, and Alexainltr Waugh (one previous couviction) was similarly dealt with. A Pkci'liak Cask,— Thomas Strwnrl was charged with stealing on or about September 4 a gold bracelet, valued at L.'l, the property of Henrietta Morrison.—Accused pleaded not guilty.—Chief-detective Henderson said that on the 2nd inat. complainant went for a walk, and during the day lost a gold bracelet, which waß pledged two days later by accused at a pawnshop. Accused first took the bracelet to Mr Solomon's shop, but he was there advised not to dispose of the article, us he was likely to get into trouble by doing so. Subsequently, the bracelet was pledged at another pawnbroker's shop, accused stating that the article belonged to his wife.—His Worship : Where was tho bracelet picked up ; in the street? Chief-detective Henderson replied that accused had found the bracelet in the street, near Pitt Btreet. His Worship said that if such was the case larceny could not be proved.—Chief-detoc-tive Henderson said that he could prove that insufficient precaution bud been taken, and insufficient inquiry made by accused. — His Worship : Yes ; but there is nothing to show that accused found the bracelet.— Chief-detective Henderson said that he would show that accused admitted having picked up the bracelet.—His Worship said that if such was the case he would proceed with the hearing cf the charge.—Chiefdetective Henderson replied that accused had admitted to him that he had found the bracelet and had pledged it beoauso he was hard up and wanted to get some money. He had also suid that he did not see the advertisement referring to the loss of tho bracelot until two days after the articlo had heen pledged at Mr Myers's establishment.— Henrietta Morrison said that on Monday, the 2nd, she was out walking, and during tho day lost a gold bracelet. Witness saw jt on her arm while in Brown, Ewing's shop, and missed it when she arrived at Pitt streot. The bands of the bracelet were fastened together with a piece of black potton. No one had any authority to remove or sell tho bracelet.—Abraham Solomon, pawnbroker, said that accused came into his shop about a week ago and wanted to pledge nr sell it, saying that he had found it at Pitt street, Witness cautioned accused, saying that if he disposed of it he would get into trouble. The bracelet was left for a day, but the next day accused returned and asked for it. Witness thought that accused was sorry that he had been forced to pawn the bracelet —Abraham Myers #ave evidence as to accused pledging the bracelet, stating that it belonged to his wife. Witness asked him where he had got the bracelet, and he repeated that the bracelet belonged to his wife.—Chief-detective Henderson said that when arrested laßt night accused admittod haviDg pledged the bracelet, stating that be found it in Pitt street. He said he was very hard up, and did not know who it belonged to until he saw the advertisement in the paper describing the article.—His Worship said that there was no evidence as to larceny, as accused had at once admitted that he found the bracelet, and had offered to give it up to tho owner.—Chief-detective Henderson asked leave to substitute a charge of "illegally pawning," instead of larceny.—His Worship said it was too late to do that, as he had pronounced an opinion on the cafe. The caee would be dismissed. Larckny.— John Crawthaw was charged with Btealing, between the sth and 12th March, two game cockerels valued at L 5, tho property of James M'Leod Nicholson.— After examining the charge, His Worship suid that tho alleged larceny was one at common law and not constituted under the statute. If accused stole the fowls more than six months ago he could not deal summarily with the case—it would have to go to the Supreme Court. —Chief-detectivo Henderson said that the offence had been committed between the sth and 12th of March. His Worship : And the charge brought to-day ? Chief-detcc-tivo Henderson : Yes, but accuped was arrested yesterday, your Worship. —His Worship :On information ?—Chiefdetective Henderson : No, your Worship.— His Worship said it must be treated as an indictable offence in any caße.—Upon complainant being called to swear the information ho said he was disinclined to do so—he did not want to go on with the case, unless he was forced to do so.—His Worship said neither he nor anyone else could force Mr Nicholson to lay a complaint against accused Tile police could; however, take up the case if they chose.—Chief-detective Henderson said that tho police had no feeling in the matter, btit Mr Nicholson had evidently changed his mind'-sinco yesterday.—Mr Nidholson said that he had received one cockerel, while accused had promised to send to Oarriaru for the other.—Case dismissed. Aotltkratkd Milk.— Hector MCuuf/han was charged with, while haviDg in bis possession a certain vessel contained in a vehicle, and while cartying milk for sale, unlawfully having a certain milk which £air adulterated. Mr §. Solornop appeared jor*defendant) and said he intended to contend that the oase must fall to the ground. He aßked His Worship to say whether he considered it advisable for him (Mr Solomon) to argue the case before evidence was called, for to proceed with the evidence was, he considered, unnecessary. His Worship: Why ; what is wrong ?—Mr Solomon : There is no offence disclosed. Mr Thornton said that ho appeared to defend another milkman similarly chargpd, and asked if he could assist Mr Solomon. Mr Solomon: 1 shall be delighted. There had evidently been a misapprehension as to the specific conditions of the Adulterated Preventions Act, under which authority the information had been laid. Sections 3, 4, and 5 referred to the adulteration of food, but section 5 referred more particularly to the present case, and it was doubtless under that section that tho present charge had been laid. In this case the inspector had by authority of the Act quoted obtained a sample of the milk, but which was not sold to him by defendant. After referring to the various provisions of the Act, Mr Solomon submitted that defendant was not charged, with selling the milk—he was charged with having the adulterated milk in his possession—and therefore the present charge must necessarily fall to the ground.—His Worship said that if the prosecution could show by evidence adduced that, an offence could be established or proved, that would be a different matter.—Mr Solomon submitted that there could be no evidence as to the ortenco, because tho offence was not defined. Justice Gillies had B&id so, and had allowed (in appeal made by the defendant in a similar case, after conviction.. A lengthy argument then ensued anent the meaning of the section of the Aot referrod to, and as to whether there waß a sale effected or not. Mia Worship ultimately deoided that the charge was faulty, and dismissed the cases, EtvAr. Tkams.—ln the case of Williama v. Yowifj Mr Sim, who appeared for plain, tiff, aßked for an adjournment. This was opposed by Mr Calvert, counsel for defen dant, but was agreed to by His Worship, the case being adjourned till next Thursday,
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS.-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 8010, 12 September 1889
THE COURTS.-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 8010, 12 September 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.