THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 9707, 16 May 1895, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., S.M.)

The Industrial Schools Act.— Al'xi Hill was brought before the Court as a neglected child.—Sergeant O'Neill said that the child's mother died four or five years ago, and the father, Samuel Hill, who was batter known as " Yankee Sam,"' died in the hospital last week. The child was destitute and had no means. The matter was reported to the Benevolent Trustees, and they recommended that the case.be brought before His Worship.—Committed to the Industrial School, to be brought up in the Church of England form of religion. Alleged Assault.— John Toomey was charged with assaulting and beating Thomas Grose on the Ist inst.—Mr Sim, instructed by Mr Thornton, appeared for the defendant and asked for an adjournment for a fortnight. Mr Toomey went to Wellington on Monday last, and would not be back for a couple of weeks.—Mr Solomon, for the complainant, objected to an adjournment. Mr Sim was not aware that on Monday Mr Thornton wrote him a letter asking that the case be adjourned, as Mr Toomey had gone to Wellington that afternoon on business. He {learned counsel) wrote back that he could not consent to an adjournment, for if the defendant chose to go away on business in preference to the court case he would have to put up with the consequences. —Mr Sim said that he knew nothing about the facts of the ease. There was no suggestion that Mr Toomey. was not likely to return.—Mr Solomon replied i hat it was a recognised fact that Mr Toomey was in the habit of going round the place knocking people about. He had been before the Court on a previous occasion and bound over for a similar offence. If costs were granted he (learned counsel) would not object to the case being adjourned.—The case was adjourned for a fortnight, costs being al owed.

Charges of Theft.— William Walt, who gave his age as eighteen, was charged with theft on the 27th February last of a quantity of clothing, valued at* 203, the property of Francis Hawke. He was further charged with the theft of goods, valued at 10s, the property of John Hosking Carter, and of a pair of trousers, valued at 7s 6d, belonging to the same prosecutor. Accused pleaded guilty to the first two charges and not guilty to stealing the trousers. Chiefdetective O'Connor explained that in the first case the <1 tliei were stolen from a clothes line, and the goods in the second case from the door of Mr Cartel's shop. With regard to the trousers, accused was found wearing them, and they were afterwards identified as Mr Carter's property. Accused siid he bought the troueers from a young man whose name he did not know.— After-evidence, Mr Caicv said there \va? no actual proof that accused stole the trouserp, and that charge would be dismissed. He would be sentenced to one month's imprisonment on the other two charges, the sentences to be cumulative.

The Infant Life Protection Act.— Rebecca Halford was charged, as the keeper of a child under the age of two yearp, with failing to register her house under the Infant Life Protection Act, 1893.—S«rgeant O'Neill said that since this case was adjourned from last week the defendant had received a letter from the father of the child, who had made arrangements to have it sent to Auckland on the 27th inst. With a view of seeing that the" arrangements were carried out he would ask f«r an adjournment for a fortnight.—Adjourned accordingly.

A Sh'Vrt Weight — William Higginson, charged with having in his possession a one* pound weight found to be light, pleaded guilty.—lnspector Hansen explained, that defendant carried on business as a butcher in Dunedin. Witness found him hawking meat about in a cart. He examined the weights, and found the one-pound weight complained of about half an otiuce light. All the other weights were equally light in proportion.—Defendant was fined ,20s and costs (20s), and the weight was ordered to be forfeited.

The Shops anp Shop Assistants Act.—

John Flemhig was pbargei with falling to close hia shop on the afternoon of Wpdnesdar t tie Ist inst. He we)* also/ pharged with employing Michael Fent'n and James fu'.Bis shop' later than half an hour after.one o'clock on the afternpoii of the Ist inßt/ Mr ap« Reared for the defendant, and pleaded guilty to. the three - Haggitt, who represented the Inspector,' said that the defendant had been warned on previous occasions for keeping his shop open about an hoar after the time it should he closed. Other people had oomplaJned to the impsotor that they closed their ohops' at the-appointed lime and that defendant did not. When ouwr people in the.same business as Mr Fleming closed their shops punctually they had a fair cause for complaint, and it was to prevent a continuance of their remonstrances these proceedings were takeiv The inspector did not press for a heavy penalty.— Mr Solomon said it was unfortunately a fact that Mr Fleming had kept hia premises t pen longer than the time prescribed. An extraordinary amount of hardship and inconvenience arose from the.drastic nature of the law. On the day iu question Mr Fleming was. Berving people with food they abßOlutely required; and he kept open about half an hour after the prescribed time.—Defendant was fined 5s on each charge, with costs.

The Factoky Act.— John Philip Armstrong was charged with not registering his premises as a factory under the Factories j Act. Mr W. C. Macgregor appeared for the inspector and Mr C. M. Mouat for the defendant.—Hia Worship remarked thai there was another charge against the defen- | dant, and he undirstood counsel desired , that the two charges be heard together.— Mr Mouat: That is so. There.is only one ' point to be decided. The defendant was ihen further charged with not keeping his f ictory in conformity with the provisions if the Factory Act of 1894.—Mr Macgregor J said that it would be found that there was j only one serious question to be deoided, aud that question was one which the inspector aud the defendant wanted decided. The question was :■ Is a a factory under the meaning of the Factories Act ? Of course if His Worship decided against the defendant they would not press for a heavy penalty. He (learned counsel) contended that the defendant's place was a place in which two or more people were working in preparing articles for trade and sale within the meaning of the statute. The informations were laid under section 9, subsection 3, and section 65. The inspector had spoken to the defendant several times, and impressed upon Mm that he was bound under the Act to register his place of business, but Mr Armstrong declined.— Evidence was given by Inspector Maxwell aud the defendant, after which Mr Mouat a .id the whole point in this case was whether ihe place where the ordinary business of a ■ 'entist was carried on was a factory within •t he meaning of the Act. He would endeavor to show that whatever might be the strict definition of the word " factory" in the Act, it did not cover the profession or business >f a dentist or any other profession. He contended that the definition did not go any ti'.rther than to apply to trades as opposed to a profession. The business of a dentist was a high and important profession, and .lid not consist of making articles for trade or sale. He (learued counsel) then proceeded io quote several authorities and dictionary authors in support of his view.—Mr Macbriefly replied, after which His Worship said he would give his decision next couit day. Assault. -George ItacMy pleaded guilty to a charge of assaulting George Clark on the Kith April—Mr Solomon explained that the defendant assaulted the complainant without any provocation whatever.. He b.oke a stick over him and struck him with a large stone. —After evidence, jdefendant was lined 503 and costs (28>)-—Another charge against the same defendant of stealing a key v.ilucd at St 9J, the property of George Clark, was withdrawn.