THE COURTS-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 13013, 7 January 1907, Page 4

THE COURTS-TO-DAY

CITY POLICE COUET. (Before H. Y. Widdow*wi, E#q., S.M.) Drunkenness. —John Thomson, who bad not been before the court for tea wm, was convicted and discharged. -William James Evans pleaded guilty, and in answer to the Bench said that he was just on twenty-one years of age, and had been ■working in the Workshops for a white, but was now blacksmithing.—Statioa-eergeant King said that this lad was x prohibited ponson. The order was issued last November at the instance of his mother. There were no previous convictions.—H* Worship : This Is one of the sad cases of young men being brought before the Court that I mentioned some time ago. I shall treat vou as an ordinary offender just now, but you had better take it as a. lesson. If yon come here again you -a ill be very aeterely dealt with. You are fined 6s, in default twenty-four hours. A first offender, who explained that upon coming to town ho met a few Scotch friends and did not think it would get into his head, was fined Ss, and ordered to pay 8s cab hire. Indecency.—-Ellen, Finiiegan, charged with gross misbehaviour in a yamoffManor plaoo last night, said that she was innocent, also that tho arresting officer (Constable Brien) could not bring corroboration of his evidence; also that if there was any truth in the constable"* evidence it was not fair that she should be punished whilst the other party to the charge went free.—Constable Brien gave evidence, and added in answer to the Bench that tbe man made a bolt of it.—His Worship (to accused): You have been convicted of all sorts of offences previously, and for this offence twice before. Six months. Vagrancy not Proved.—Kitty Andrews was charged with being an idle and disorderly person. Tho caso for the potto* was that on the 4th inst. the defendant wae convicted of drunkenness and discharged "on promising to leave the town at once, and that sine© then she had kept - here, and had been strongly complanied of.—His Worship said that this was not sufficient to establish the charge.—Accused asked for another chance; if it were given she would leave the town at once.—His Worship: You will have the opporttmity. The case is dismissed. Assaulting a Constable.—Cabel Thomas, charged with assaulting Constable M"Eenzie at Kaifcangata, was further remanded, on tho application of tbe police, till Wednesday. ~ . Theft, from the Person. Margaret M'Carthv appeared to answer a charge of this nature. Mr Emslie asked the Court to reduce the charge to one of theft, so as to save going to the Supreme Court: if this were done the girl would pkad Rjutty. —His Worship : I cannot do that. If it is a case of stealing from tie person it is stealing from the person.—Mr Emrfio urged that the amount was small. —His Worship: Ido not think thai the essence of the crime is the amount being smalL I do not think it is competent for the Court to reduce the charge.—Mr Emslie: It is a question whether any greater penalty would be inflicted by the Supreme Court.—His Worship: I have nothing to do with that.—Chiof-detectivo Herbert said that the police would, apply to hove the charge reduced if it could be done, but Judges had commented adversely -upon that being dono in the past. The facte were that Mrs Isabella, Grant, of Albany Btreet. was on tho 21st December followed into Escott's shop (in George street) by the accused, who put her hand into Mrs Grant's pocket, took out a purse, went along the street, opened tho purse, took out its contents—a half-crown and three pennies—and threw the purse away. Six. voung ladies employed at Mrs Bevcndge s, opposite Escott's, watched the theft from an upstairs window. Thrco of these young ladies would give direct evidence as to thft theft. Ore of them ran downstairs, followed the accused, texed her with tho act, and asked for the return of the pur**; whereupon accused said "What » cheek!"' and went awav. Accused, when arrested bv Detectives Mitchell and Hunt, begged to be let go, saving she would not do it amiin.—Evidence was given by Isabella Grant, William Eseott. Kntie Imelda, Wilson Lydia Jane Clark. Margaret Mabel Stent, and Detective Mitchell.-—Having heard tho evidence, accused pleaded gjjdty. and was remanded to tbe Supreme Court for sentence. Bail was allowed. Committed for Trial.—Daniel Smith was chareed with stealing from the person of Simpson Dunn on the 24th of December, 1906Y one £5 note, four sovereigns, one half-sovereign, ono wfttch, and one imitation gold chain ; total vaioe, SlO 7s 6d.—Chief-detective Herbert stated th« facts The prosecutor had come to town with about £l7 in his poeseMion- .He had known tho accused- and meeting him, pawl for drinks and meals for both. Eventoffiy the complainant went to sleep on a sol* at Stentiford's Boarding-house, in Maclaggaa street. When ho woke up bis money^ was missing, and he reported tlwv n»««J» the police. Inquiries made W that accused called at a hotel and tendered a £5 note in payment for Is worth _of drink. Accused denied that be had toed to cash a £5 noto.-Tbe rrosecutor «id he was a laborer, and had arrived tolhmedin from the North Island on the Thursday nieht before Christmas, having then, and tbe rest made up by one pound notes and some silver. He had known acaosed for about twenty-five years, and on meeting him witness paid for drinks and dinner lor both. After having tea together they west to Stentiford's BoaraSng-nouse, and witness lay down on a sofa in the sitting room. Accused sat down beside him on the sofa. Witness foil asleep, and when he woke xus about half an hour later he missed bis watch and chain, also his money. T*e watch and chain would be worth about 15s. On finding his property was gone witness set out to look for accused, but could not find him. On tho Wednesday morning following witness met accused in Maclaggaa street, and asked him about the watch and chain. Accused.then denied any knowledge of the watch and Cham. Witness did not speak of the money, .tat reported the matter to the denee was also given by John Joseph' I**-;. dale, William Henrv Davis Hughes. Mary O'Ddnnell, and Defective* '.Mitchell and Hunt.—Accused reserved bia defence, and was committed for trial to the next sitting of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed; self in £l6O, and two sureties of £75 each.