THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 11626, 10 July 1902, Page 4

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before E, H. Carefw, Esq., 8.M.) Drunkenness.—A first offender, who did Hot appear, was fined 10s, or forty-eight hours’ imprisonment, and another offender who made his first appearance was mulcted in the sum of ss, or twenty-four hours. Seamen in Trouble.—John MTntyte, Donald Macdonald, and John M'Lean, seamen aboard the ship Pass of Balmaha, all pleaded guilty to detesting from the vessel without leave. —The Captain told the Court that the men were continually going ashore without leave and getting the worse of liquor. The ship would be sailing again next Tuesday or Wednesday.—His Worship fined each of the men two days’ pay (4s) with costs (7s each).

The Beer Duty Act.—Mary Tansey Was charged with, on the Ist June, at the Coach and Horses Hotel, Fairfield, -drawing beer from a cask without destroying or defacing the duty stamp affixed thereon The defendant pleaded guilty.—Mr Chamberlain, Collector of Customs, said that an officer acting under bis instructions visited the defendant's hotel, and found a cask of beer on tap standing in the bar, the stamp on which was not defaced, as required by the Act. In this case he (Mr Chamberlain) was not desirous of asking for a heavy penalty, as he had reason to believe that the offence was accidental, and not committed with any fraudulent intent.—His Worship, in inflicting a fine of 40s and costs (7s), mentioned that the maximum penalty under the Act was £6O.—A similar charge against John Tanrey was withdrawn by consent. Theft of Beer.—Edward Dormer and Sydney Albert Arthur, two young men, were charged with, on the 6th inst., stealing a keg of beer valued at about 20s, the property of M‘Gavin and 00. They were further charged with, on the same date, being found by night without lawful excuse in the enclosed area known as M‘Gavin’s Brewery.—Mr Hanlon, who appeared for the accused, said that he was only instructed in the cases last evening, and under the circumstances he had to ask for a remand until to-morrow.—The Subinspector offering no objection, the accused were remanded accordingly, bail being allowed each in hjs own recognisance of £SO and two sureties of £25 each. Industrial School Case.—Frederick William Wyndham, an indigent child within the meaning of the Industrial Schools Act, was brought up.—The mother taid that she had been working at St. Clair as a general servant, for which she got 4s a week. The child was illegitimate.—His Worship said that he would adjourn the case for a week, lie thought that the police should inquve as to whether the mother wa-. only getting . a week—it seemed a rerr small sum indeed—and as to whether they could find oat anything about the hAhor." Obscene Language.—Thomas Barlow was charged with, on the 10th inst., using obin Manor P’ a °s-—Andrew Liddle, a dairyman, to whom the language tbat fc be only reason ho could assign for accused using bad language towards him was that be (witness) worked * be wbarf a* % time of the maritime tbat all he had said *?» a blackleg and was ro gooa. His Worship said that it was simply dSLtr“ ~ tk d “ rEi \Zr i W f i l 1 Gamblers, —Alexander Bain, Ha -I es ’ Bnd Danie l n boys ~ Wf * B with, on the 21st June, m Cumberland street, playing by way of gaming with a certain article used as a gammg inst-rmnent (commonly i n .°TL aS a TT kI ,P”> at a S»»e <>f chance, to wit Two Up. —Mr Hanlon appeared for the boys. Bam, h© said, pleaded guilty, and the others not guilty.—The tor said that the information was laid under section 8 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881. About three o’clock on the afternoon in question a telephone message was received at the Bolieo Station that a number of boys were, underneath the overbridge in Cumberland street playing “ Two-up.” Sergeant Lyons went to tie place, and saw a number of boys at the game, Wien they noticed the police they ran away, but two other boys cave particulars to the sergeant —Albert Chin said that all the boys except MTntosh were playing the game,‘and betting on the results. They were playing for about an hour and a-half before the sergeant arrived.—The defendant Bain said that he was playing with the last witness and another boy called Brooks. The other defendants were not playing the game. Witness lost all his money, amounting to Is, and was sitting down when the police appeared. Either Chin or Brooks got his money.—Mr Hanlon submitted that there was no case to angwer, as the two wit nesses for the prosecution contradicted themselves.—His Worship agreed that the case was not proved against any of the boys except the one who pleaded guilty. Bain would be fined 10s, without costs. Maintenance. William Brosnan was charged with failing to provide for the maintenance of his child, an inmate of the Industrial School—Ordered to pay > 2s 6d a week.

Robert Sutherland, similarly charged, expressed his willingness to pay, and was ordered to contribute 4s a week.

John Dix, charged with disobeying a maintenance order, was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment.

John Andrew Docherty was charged with failing to maintain his wife and chili— Mr Brown-Durio appeared for the complainant, and Mr Irwin for the defendant. —His Worship marie an order for the payment of 15s a week for the support of the wife.

James Duncan Pollock was charged with failing to maintain bis three children.—His Worship made an order for the payment of 5s a week for one child.

Frank Belesky was charged with failing to provide bis wife and five children with adequate means of support.—Accused, who was arrested at Palmerston on warrant, was remanded until Monday, bail being showed in his own recognisance* of £2O, and one surety of a like amount. 'The Licensing Act.—Donald McDonald, licensee of the Railway Hotel, South Dunedin. was charged with selling liquor on Sunday, the 15th of June. Mr A. C. Hanlon defended. Mr J. P. M, Prater, who appeared to prosecute, explained that shortly after noon on the Sunday in question Sergeant Conn and a constable entered the Railway Hotel at Ogg’s Corner by a back door, and went to a tap room off the bar, where they found two men named James Fraser and John M'Kechnie. The latter had a mug of beer in his hand. The bar door was open, and the licensee was inside the bar at the time. The sergeant sail to M’Kechnie: “Is that beer you have got?” He replied; “ Yes. lam a lodger; I stayed here last night, and have a right to be served.” The licensee then came out of the bar, and said : “ That is all right, sergeant; he stayed here last night ” The sergeant replied : “ That is nonsense. I know where he stops.” Ihe police then went into another room, and found three men there. The licensee fo’lowed the officers along the passage, and said: “ Look over it this time, sergeant; there will be no more Sunday serving in future.”—Sergeant Conn, in his evidence, said tbit Fraser bari no drink in his hand. MKechnio lived about 100 yds from the hotel. Witness returned to the hotel a few minutes after seeing the men there, and said to the'defendant: “Do you reari the papers?” He replied: "They all sell on Sunday as well as me.”—Constable Bennett gave corroborative evidence.—This was the case for the prosecution.—Mr Hanlon said: I have no remarks to mike on the evidence, I approached my friend with a view of getting an. adjournment in order to enable me to prepare a defence, but was refused. I am therefore totally unable to do anything on behalf of the defendant, and must leave the matter there. —His Worship said that the case, from the evidence, seemed to be very clear. The defendant would bo fined £5 and costs (28s), the conviction to be endorsed upon the license. t Another charge against the same defendant of exposin'’- Timior for sale on the same date was withdrawn.