THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 8615, 8 September 1891, Page 2

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs P. G. Pryde and A. Herd, Justices.) Alleged False Pretences, Thomas Hassell was charged with obtaining L 6 from Wm. Pacey by false pretences,—Chiefdetective Henderson asked for a remand till Thursday.—Application granted. The By-laws.— Matthew Miller, a carter in the employ of Duthie Bros., was charged with permitting a vehicle under his charge to stand in George street without causing such vehicle to be placed alongside of and parallel with the footway. Mr Fraser defended.—lnspector Morrison said that on the 2nd iust. defendant backed his cart into the kerb opposite Arthur’s, the tailors. When spoken to by witness he said that the by-laws were no good, and that he had no objection to give his name so that a lest case could be brought. The carter remained there till he had discharged his load. This was not the first case witness had brought under by-law 49, In October he obtained a conviction against Cho Qua.-Mr Fraser: Say that a man has a load of mixed merchandise, how do you expect him to unload and deliver it unless you let him back in in some sort of way ? Is it not done every day in the week?— The Inspector; It all depends.—Mr Fraser: If you were a carter delivering stuff, would you not do exactly as this man did’—The Inspector; I don’t know. Perhaps I would, but it is against the bylaw.—Mr Fraser urged that a carter must got the tail of his dray in some way on the footpath if he was to do his work. Further, iu this case the c »rt was as broad as it was long, and a square cart would be parallel to the footway whichever way you liked to put it, end on or aide on. It was only the cart that ho (Mr Fraser) was concerned about, for the by-law under which the information was laid said uothing about a horse, and by the interpretation clause •* vehicle ” did not include *'horse.” He did not see how it was possible to convict without straining the by-law, which he submitted the Bench would not do. He might say that in any event there would be no further trouble so far as Duthie’s carters were concerned, as instructions would be given to obey the bylaw as far as possible. Defendant gave evidence to the effect that his cart was as broad one way as the other, and that he knew of the by-law, but thought it was done away with.—Mr Fraser called attention to by-law 53, subsection J, which prohibits any person driving a vehicle within 3ft of the kerb.—Mr Pryde: Ho is not driving when be is standing still. Mr Fraser : No, hut he has to drive until he gets there, and then the offence would be coni plete, la this case, H the man had pulled up without being within 3ifc of the kerb his cart would have been on the tramline, and if he had pulled up where Inspector Morrison expected him to do, he would have been in the channel, which was an offence under by-law 47, Part IY. The inspector was of course only doing bis duty, but the Bench were asked to rule that all the city traffic must be kept 3ft off the kerbing, and that was not only quite impracticable, but to try to carry out such a rule would lead to a great number of accidents. —The Bench decided that there had been a breach of the by-law, and a conviction would be recorded, without a fine.—Mr Fraser remarked that he was perfectly satisfied, and instructions would be given to Duthie’a men to keep the by-law as far as they could. Housebreaking. —John Oillison pleaded not guilty to a charge of breaking and entering the house of Barbara Hutchison, at Helena street, South Dunedin, with intent to steal therefrom. Sergeant-major Bevin having stated the facts, called the prosecutrix, wife of William Hutchison, at present in Sydney. She said that on the 31st of last month she left her house at two in the afternoon, locking the doors before going. The scullery window was fastened by a nail, and by shaking this window it would open —so witness believed. When she returned at half-past four she found the baok door open. A person opening the window could open the door.—Agnes Smith, eleven years of age, deposed that on the afternoon of the day in question she was standing in the street, when she saw accused inside the house, in the front room, by the window. She had picked out accused from a number of others as the man she saw in Mrs Hutchison’s house, and had also identified him subsequently at the Dunedin station. She was about six yards from the man when she saw him in the house. Three other girls were with her at the time, Daisy Hutchison (twelve years old) said that on returning from school she heard someone walking about inside, and going round to the front she saw accused inside the front window, She had afterwards identified Gilliaon when ho was placed among eight or nine other men.—Margaret Swan (eleven years of age) gave evidence as to seeing accused going from the back door of the house towards the vinery; and Maggie MJ&errow (eleven years old) said that she saw aeotJied looking

through the window. When he saw her he popped down.—William Kindley, traveller, said that he called at the house between two and three o’clock, and found it locked up back and front, Returning between four and five o’clock he went through the house in consequence of what the children told him, and found the scullery door open, —Constable Dale said that ho arrested accused on suspicion of being the man who broke into the house, and on his way with accused to the station they passed the little girls now in Court, who called out “ That’s the man,” or '* Here’s the man," and they all identified him subsequently. When arrested, accused denied the charge, saying that he had been in a brewery all the afternoon, Witness took the boots from accused and made an impression, which] resembled a footprint seen near the vinery.—Accused being cautioned, said that be was at the brewery from between two and three o’clock till about six o’clock, and that some of the men there could say when he went in.—The sergeant-major said that it accused wished to call any of the brewery men as witnesses he could do so, as the police had subpoenaed them. Accused made no response, He was thereupon committed for trial.