POLICE COURT.—Saturday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1054, 1 April 1867, Page 5

POLICE COURT.—Saturday.

(Before Thos. Beckham, Esq., 11. M.) BEEACH 'Oir THE MUTINY ACT. - T. A. Hicks, was brouglit up, cLurijcd Ijj' - ds* to.ctivs Ternalian, with, a breach. of'the 85th. cla'jr.e of the above Act, by having' in. his possesion two silver medals, and three elasps, value lis Gd, the property of one Charles Shields, a soldier belonging to H. M. 57th Hegiment. Mr. Commissioner Naughton appeared for the prosecution. . -prisoner pleaded guilty to having the articles 111 his possession, but denied having had any knowledge that tliey were stolen. His Worship: You say you were unaware" that the articles we're stolen, but we shall see how impossible it was that such would he the case if you only exercised your eyesight and judgment. Here wc have on one of these medals the words " Sebastopol," " Internum," "ialaekva," and the owner's name together with his regimental number, and yet you did not take the trouble to ascertain whether the person who pawned the articles was the true owner or not. Then the other medal is also equally well marked, being for "the Crimea," and having these inscriptions, how can you come here aud say you were ignorant of the fact that they were stolen.

The prisoner said he was not aware that any law existed forbid ing the purchase of such articles.

His Worship said in that case the only inference that could be drawn was that tlie prisoner was devoid of common sense. The facility with which goods were pawned in Auckland without any inquiries as to the mode of acquirement was a direct inducement to the commission of crime. The small sum, 2s Cd, for which the articles had been pawned, was a proof of tlie suspicious character of the transaction. The owner of those medals had doubtless jeopardised his life in earning them, and on that account must prize them very highly, and yet people wore found so dishonest as to steal and pawn them for an insignificant sum. What he had so often said in that Court he would repeat again, if there were no receivers of stolen property there would be no thieves. People could steal property and pawn it with impunity, no questions were asked, and articles of any description were received by the pawnbroker, so that there was little fear of detection. It was high time that a check were put upon, the continuance of such a state of things, and it would be the duty of tlie Bench to make an example in the present case, and His Worship hoped that it would have the effect of deterring others from receiving stolen property.

Prisoner made some remarks which were almost inaudible, and the only part of which that we could catch was that people would not be such fools as to knowingly receive stolen property.

His Worship having remarked that there was a class of people much worse than fools, proceeded to read the Sotli clause of the Mutiny Act, -which declares that auy person. " who shall have in his or her possession or keeping any arms, ammunition, medals, clothes, furniture, provisions, spirits, articles, necessaries, or forage, and shall not give a satisfactory account of how he or she came by the same, shall forfeit for any such offence a sum not exceeding £20," together with treble the value of the articles. The same clause further declares that upon conviction of a second offence in addition to the penalty already mentioned, the offender may be imprisoned with or without hard labor for any term not exceeding six calendar months. Prisoner said the pawnbroking business frequently entailed loss, as the pawnbrokers had sometimes hundreds of pounds'worth of property in their keeping without receiving a sixpence of interest therein. A good deal was said about large interest, but it was nccessary iu order to cover risk. His Worship said that was not the. worse feature of the trade. It was one of the primary causes of crime. It would be the duty of the Bench iu the present case to inflict a fine of £20, and in every case of a similar kind, the largest possible punishment would be awarded. Prisoner was then ordered to pay a fine of £20, in addition to treble the value of tiie goods. DESERTION. James Casey pleaded guilty to being a deserter from H. M. 14th Regiment, and was ordered to be handed over to the military authorities.