THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 12870, 20 July 1906, Page 4

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before W. G. Riddell, Esq., S.M.)

Drunkenness. —A first offender was fined ss, in defiult twenty-four hours' imprisonntent.—William Crowley was similarly punished, and His Worship suggested that he should take out a prohibition' order against himself.—George Hobcroft was fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment.

Unlawful Possession of Moon was charged with having in his possessi&n on the 19th July a quantity of opium, in a form suitable for smoking. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for accused, who pleaded guilty.—Station-sergeant King said the defendant was a resident of Walker street. On the date mentioned in the information he was foundi smoking opium in his house, in which three or four ounces and some packets of the drug wore found.—Mr Hanton said the facts were admitted. The defendant had the opium in his possession, and kept it on the premises for smoking himself. There was a second charge against the accused, which Le supposed tl»e police would have no objection to withdrawing, as it was practioally part and parcel of the first charge.—His Worship said that the Act provided for a maximum fine of £SO. Defendant had admitted the offence, and would be fined £lO and costs (lis). The second charge against defendant was tlat on the date mentioned he did unlawfully smoke opium. For that offence he would be convicted and ordered to pay the costs of court (7s).

Variation of an Order.—Alice May Wilson applied to have an order, for maintenance of a child varied.—Mr D. Cooke, who appeared for applicant, said that in May, 1904, she was directed by the Court to pay 5s per week towards the support daughter, an inmate of the Industrial School. Since that order had been made applicant's circumstancos had undergone a change, and as would bo seen from a filed affidavit by applicant she had to support two other children as well. She was a cook, employed at Gore, and her wages were only £1 per week, so that after she had paid about 12s 6d weekly for the maintenance of her children, there was only 7s 6d left for herself.—His Worship said there wore jno affidavits before the Court. The Bench could make no variation of the order without some evidence before it.—Mr Cooke said he had been given to understand that the affidavits had been filed in due form. The Clerk of the Court said that only applications had # been filed.—Mr Cooke said that under th<s circumstances he would ask for an adjournment to this day week.—Adjournment granted. Breaches of By-laws.—Samuel Worthey, charged with driving his vehicle on the wrong side of the street, pleaded guilty, and was fined 5s and costs (7s). James Kaler was charged with having left his vehicle unattended without having the wheels properly secured. Mr A C. Hanlon I appeared for defendant, who, counsel said, pleaded guilty, but urged his isrnorance of the existence of the by-law.—His Worship said that was no excuse. Defendant's own common rense should have put him right on the matter. He would bo fined 10s and costs. The same defendant was then charged under a by-law of the Taieri County with having refused to stop driving has vehicle (to that the contents might be examined) when directed to do so by an official of the Council. Mr D. Cooke appeared to prosecute ; Mr Hanlon ■ represented defendant, who pleaded not gniltv.— Mr Cooke said that under the particular by-law referred to in the information drivers of vehicles carrying over a certain weight must be provided with a license. A clause stated that if there was any apparent infringement of the by-law an official of the Council could stop tlio driver of any vehicle, in order that the weight of the load upon it might £« ascertained. On the j i u ? "?? d in tho il,fo rmation the defendant had been so directed, and had refused to comply.—Robert Bain produced a docn- ™. nt . appointing him an official of the laicn Ounty Council. He had seen defendant driving a two-wheeled vehicle contaming cnl. and- "as he suspecfed an infrtnGrement 0 f the bv-law ho had told defendant to stop driving in order that the correct weight of his load misfit be ascertained. Defendant refused to do so, nnd threatened "to punch witness heart. He further said that witness had fallon one* before over tfrs. matter, and would fall acr.-un.—After his cross-examination, Mr Hanlon submitted that there was no evidence before the Court that the by-law had rfwived the apnroval of the Minister. Subsection 4 of section 130, Public Works Art. 18P4. provided that no bv-law could be «dlcd. into effect until it 'had' been inti™o.)*d thflt the Minister) approved. The Government Railways and Public Works Act Amendment Act, 1895, repealed the section referred to, but enacted that a copy of a by-law must Ij© sent to the Minister within one week of the date of it having been passed, for the purpose of securing his approval. There was nothing before the Court to show that this by-law had received the Minister's sanation, and counsel submitted that that was fatal to the ca<o. A further question, though one which counsel did not particularly urge, was as to whether the authority of Mr Bain was sufficient. Bain's appointment had the seal of the County, Council attached, but it was signed by tho county clerk, and counsel doubted whether that official Lid power to attach the Council's seal to j?uch a document. It was his first point, however, thai counsel relied on mainly, and he submitted that as there was no evidence before tl,e Court as to tho by-law ever having been eent to the Minister,, there was consequently no proof of validity. The case should therefore be dismissed.—Mr Cook said the by-law was made under the Counties Act, 1886, and it was therefore not necessary for a by-law to l>o wht to the Minister. Having made use of the section of the Act, he would put the by-hw in unoer it. Counsel qvoted authorities in support of his contention.—After fir t her discussion, His Worship said he would reserve his decision until a date to lie made, and in the meantime would consider the I points of. law raised by Mr Hanlon. • j The Licensing Act.—Elizabeth Backley ! was charged with having accoinpaaied a I prohibited person on to licensed premises—viz., the Criterion Hotel, at the suae lime Mell knowing the said person to be prolubited. She pleaded not guilty.—John Cook said there was a prohibition order out agamsb his wife. On tho I2th inst. defendant was in his wife's companv ard witness saw them both enter the Criterion Hotel. Witness spoke to the licensee of the hotel, and informed him of the facts. la conversation with witness, dtferd-uit tad a fortnight previously intimated that the kiew of the existence of the prohibition order.—Evidence was also given by Sergeant Ryan and Constable Marshall (court orderly), after which defendant was uidcred' to pay a fine of £2 and coats Hss). Breaking and Entering.— Hugh Fox, about seventeen yeans of age, was charged' with that he did, on the 15th inst., break into and enter the dwelling-house of Alice Ings, ait Riccarton, and steal therefrom the sum of 2s 6d; the property of Mrs Ings. Mr Hanlon appeared an behalf of accused —Chief-detective Herbert said the facts were shortly these: In consequence of complaints made by Mrs Ings, Acting Detective M'Leod went out to her residence, and stayed there on Sunday evening last. While the members of the family were at church Detective M'Leod saw accused enter the house, go to a, purse, and take, a naif -crown piece from it. When surprised by the detective, accused adraijitbed the theft. After evidence, accused pleaded guilty, and was remanded for sentence.—Tliere were two further informations of the same-nature in which he was charged with having broken into the same prosecutrix's house on June 27 and stolen £3, and with having on the Bth July been guilty of the same offence of breaking a»d entering and stealing 5s the property of one George Fawcett,° and ss, the property of Alice Ings.—To both charges he pleaded guilty, and was re mauded for sentence. Bail was allowed on the first charge, accused in his own recognisance of £IOO and two sureties of £SO each. On the other im> charges Sis jSsg-

ship intimated that accused's own recognisance would be accepted.

PORT CHALMERS COURT. (Before Messrs A. Thomson and C. Hodge, J.P.'s.) Drunkenness.—Alfred Geddeson, a prohibited person, was charged with being drunk on the railway platform. He was further charged that, he did, during the currency of a prohibition order, procure whisky from some person unknown.—Sergeant Geerin stated that when accused was arrested a bottle half full of whisky was found in one of his pockets, and the sergeant asked their Worships to remand accused on the second charge until Wednesday next.—Accused. pleaded guilty to the charge of drunkenness, and said that a man gave him the bottle in a railway carriage.—On the charge of drunkenness he was fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours' imprisonment, and remanded on the second charge. The Post Office Act.—William Hughes was charged that ho did, on June 29, at Portobello, put fluid—to wit, porter—into the post office letter box. He pleaded guilty.—Sergeant Geerin said the charge was laid under section 82, part section 2, of the Post Office Act. On the evening of Juno 29 the accused was in the company of John Cowan Weir and John Muirhead. The last-named went to the hotel and purchased three bottles of porter. They all then went under the verandah of a store, which was also the post office. Hughes drank one bottle, and the others only drank part of the other bottles, handing one to accused; who poured the contents into the letter box. When the letter box was opened on the following morning all the letters were found to be wet and stained. It was a very serious matter, the penalty for the offence being £2O. Accused was before the Court on April 7 for damaging tho school property, when he was fined 10s.— Hughes said that when spoken to by the police he denied any knowledge of the offence, as he was under the influence of drink on the night in question, but when Muirhead told him he had put the porter into the letter box ho then acknowledged doing it.—Their Worships inflicted a fine of £4, together with 25s costs.