THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 12093, 14 January 1904, Page 4

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before C. G. Graham, Esq,, S.M.) Drunkenness.—For being drunk on the Dunedin railway station, a first offender was fined 10s and costs. The Momington Prosecutions.—Three informations brought by E. S. Mantz against Samuel Dickson, James P. Simon, and Herbert A. Le Cren, charging each defendant with a contravention of the municipal corporations law by voting themselves free passes upon the Momington tramway, were Drought before the Court.—Mr S. Solomon, for defendants, pleaded guilty, and intimated that Mr Sim (who appeared for the prosecution) and himself had agreed to a fine of Is and costs being imposed in each case. In the case of the mayor of the borough a fine of 20s had been imposed, and considerable delay had taken place in bringing on the other cases.—A fine of Is and costs (28s) was inflicted in each case.

Alleged Sunday Trading.—William Frederick Bastings, licensee of the European Hotel, was charged with selling alcoholic liquor on the 29th of November, the said day being a Sunday. Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared for &e Crown, and Mr A. C. Hanlon for the defence.—Mr Fraser said the facts of the case were that a hew constable had lately joined the force, and in company with a boarder in the house and a man named Williamson he was served with alcoholic liquor on the date mentioned in the information. The constable paid for the drinks, and they were served by the defendant.—Patrick Crowley, a farmer residing at Millers’ Flat, and who was boarding at-the hotel on the date of the information, resolutely denied that the drinks had been servep as stated, and that the landlord had offered to serve him with liquor because be was a boarder, but would not supply the others.—After the evidence of this witness, Mr Fraser called George Crawford to give evidence, and as there was no appearance of the witness he intimated that the charge would be abandoned.—Mr Hanlon, for the defence, said the prosecution were afraid to put the constable in the box or go on with the case, and he asked for costs against the police, who had brought a charge entailing considerable expense upon the defence, but did not offer any evidence upon it.—After some argument Ills Worship said at was not usual to give costs against the police, but this was an unusual case—one in which no evidence whatever had been submitted in support of the charge, and he had -decided to dismiss the information, with costs against the police to the amount of £4 9s. Embezzlement of Cargo and Assault.— Gavin M'Gehan, a seaman on board the barque Inverurie, was charged with (1) embezzling a number of bottles of whisky and wine from the hold of the vessel when on the high seas; (2) assaulting John James Reid, first mate of the vessel; and (3) assault upon James Charlton, master of the barque. Accused pleaded guilty to all the charges.—Mr Hanlon, who appeared for the captain, pointed out the danger to the life and safely of those on hoard vessels by breaking open the hold for the purpose of broaching cargo. In such cases it was not always the case that the value of-the cargo taken had to t be considered, but there was also danger from fire, owing to lighted candles and matches being used. In this case the cargo had been extracted from immediately below the powder magazine, and a number of matches had been discovered strewed about The assault upon the mate was aggravated owing to the latter being indelicate health, and the assault upon the captain resulted from attention being called to that fact.—ln mitigation of penalty accused 'pleaded that he had already been punished by being put in irons and solitary confinement upon the barque for sixty-eight days, and in consideration of this circumstance three months’ instead of six months’ imprisonment'was ordered. Bodies for Anatomical Purposes.—James Smith, a resident of South Dunedin, was charged with handing over the body of his deceased child for anatomical purposes vjrithin thirty-six hours of death, and without .giving the necessary notification.—lnspector O’Brien said the body had been handed over to the medical men within thirty hours of death, but he was convinced the man had acted in ignorance of the law, and blamed the medical men concerned. He asked for only a nominal penalty under, the circumstances.—Mr Graham said he also blamed the medical men, who knew the law, told it was necessary the public should aleo

Know, that there was ah Anatomical Act. Under the circumstances a fine of Is without .costs would be imposed. Criminal Assault. : Alter we went to press yesterday Dr .Fulton give evidence in the charge against James CarEle Whiteman, that oh the afternoon of the alleged assault complainant came to him* in company with her brother, that he medically examined her, and that her condition was not incompatible with the statements made, but that, in his opinion, the extent of in* jnry was not so serious as he expected to Smith, wife of Frederick Smith, boilermaker, residing at 94 Forth street, deposed that between half-past, three and four o’clock on the 4th inst. Complainant, whom she had known for five years, and who had no mother, came to her housq in an excited and weeping. condition, and told her that she had been assaulted by Mr Whiteman. Complainant’s brother resided with witness and her husband, and when the latter came in she asked him to tell' complainant’s brother of the assault. On previous occasions complainant had complained to witness of accused’s insulting behaviour.—William Henry Murdoch, greasCr, employed by the Union Company, gave evidence that his sister complained to him of the assault, and that he immediately -went in search of accused, who denied it, and charged his sister with saying what was not true. Witness was not satisfied'with Whiteman’s denial and assaulted him* When licensed saw his (witness’s) sister and hshself coming towards .him ha went into a shop, and witness followed him and told him he wished to have a word with him outside/and-after they had walked a short distance down the street accused denied the offence.—Acting-detective Hill also gave evidence, and at 5.30 p.m. the further hearing was adjourned, to the next day.—When the Court resumed this morning Apting-detective Hill was examined by the defence as to the presence of 'a stable in the vicinity of Whiteman’s residence.—Mr Sim addressed the Bench on behalf of the accused, pointing out' that there was “’no charge on the calendar that could be more readily brought up than the offence With which accused was charged, and quoted Taylor’s Jurisprudence in support of the statement that out of twelve cases cited only one was genuine. Reviewing the case,, he discredited the evidence of the girl Murdoch on the ground that she did not scream out, and that, being a strong and robustgirl, and in view of accused’s physique, she could by resistance have prevented such an assault from being committed. It was also consistent with such a charge that a complainant would go to her friends and relatives in a distressed condition and make complaint. Counsel laid stress upon the statement that, although a struggle had been alleged to have taken placebetween the parties for half an hour, no bruises or marks were' found by the doctor upon the complainant. There had been no microscopical examination made by the toe&ical man, and there was an absence of proof that the offence had been committed. As to the absence of motive in making the charge, ho submitted that motive was shown by the girl when in her evidence she stated she had said to Whiteman when they were struggling “I hate you.” The reason given for that hate was that he had insulted complainant before, and he (counsel) could not suggest any other reason. Accused had denied the charge from the first, and if he had been guilty he (counsel) submitted that, recognising the seriousness of the offence, he would have offered bo square it. The story of the girl had been given with confidence and coolness, which were not characteristic of modesty, and in regard to material matters of fact her evidence was totally uncorroborated. He submitted that the charge should be dismissed, as no jury would convict cm the evidence given.—Mr Graham said he could not take the responsibility of dismissing the charge. There was some force in the contention of counsel that there bad bear a failure on the part of the medical man to make a thorough examination. In the face of the girl's evidence, which carried with it a large amount of credibility, he had decided to send the case for trial.—Accused, who reserved his defence, was then committed for trial at the next criminal sittings of the Supreme Court, bail being allowed in the stun of £4oo—accused in £2OO, and two sureties of £IOO each.

Maintenance.—Josephine Smith, wife of Frederick Smith, tailor, prayed for a maintenance order against her husband. Mr Sim appeared for applicant, and Mr Hay for defendant.—After hearing evidence, the magistrate dismissed the case on tbe ground that as Mr Smith was out of work at present he was not able to contribute to the support of Lis wife.