POLICE COURT.—Saturday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4400, 20 December 1875, Page 3

POLICE COURT.—Saturday.

[Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., B.M.] Drunkenness.—Two Europeans and one Maori were punished for this offence in the nsual manner. Vagrant Act.—John Burrell, who had just been disposed of for drunkenness, was charged with a breach of the above Act, by being a rogue, vagabond, and habitual drunkard, and with having been previously convicted as an idle and disorderly person. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Cunningham, Clerk of the Court, proved the previous eonvictions from the Police record. Sentoneed to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour.—William E. Spence was also charged with a breach of the Vagrant Act, by behaving in Queen-street, on the 17th inst., with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. Prisoner admitted the charge, and a fine of 2t)s with Is 6d costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour was imposed- ■ Larceny.—Patrick Eeady was brought up on remand charged with stealing, on the 14th inst., one spalling hammer, valued at 7s 6d, the properly of Thomas Powley. Constable Dews deposed- to having met the prisoner in Queen-street isi a drunken state with the .hammer in his hand. He said he had finished his work, and wished to dispoße of the implement. Mr. Powley gave evidence aa,to the prisoner having set; himself to work at witness's place of his own accord, and, as he did his work well, witness: engaged him. - Some time afterwards the tool was missed, and subsequently was found in prisoner's possession; He had' been acquainted with him for twenty-eight years, and during that time had never known him to, be guilty of such an offence. SubInspector Pardy said that he knew the prisoner as a harmless old man, who would

not have been capable' of committing the offence had he been sober. - Another--wit-ness, who had known Ready for fourteen •years, came forward and spoke as to the good, character he had always borne. His Worship discharged, the prisoner on condition of his returning at once to the bush, where he had previously been working. Theeatesing Language.—Thomas Mnlvaney appeared on remand, charged by his wife, Anne Mulvaney, with having used threatening language towards her. The prisoner wholly denied the charge. Anne Mulvaney was called, and stated that her husband had threatened to take her life, and also that of her eldest son. He had tried to force his way into her house, and she was in bodily fear of him. The prisoner sross-examined his wife in relation to som® matters, but failed to materially alter her statement. He then addressed himself to the Bench, stating that it was the fourth time he had been brought up by his wife, and if His "Worship let him off on this occasion he would not stop in Auckland five minutes, but would at once proceed to Mercer, where he would obtain work on the railway line. Inspector Broham remarked that the man had made a similar promise the last time he had been brought before the Court. Hia Worship said he did not wish to send men who could and would work to gaol, and, therefore, he would discharge the man upon the conditions named by him, but he would have to enter into recognizances in his own bond of £50, to keep the peace towards his wife for six months, and to pay the costs of the case (17s 6d) within one month from date. The prisoner was set at liberty upon the foregoing conditions. Alleged Forging and Uttering. —■ William Crossley, a respectably-dressed young man, was charged with forging and uttering a cheque for £10 on Messrs. Dunningham and King, with forging and uttering a cheque on John Odium, and with forging and uttering a cheque on Herbert Oram. On the application of Inspector Broham, the hearing of the three charges was adjourned till the 2Sth inst. Railway Regulations.—Edward Dance was charged with a breach of the Railway Regulations, by persisting in remaining on the verandah of the train while it was in l.iotion. He was also charged with -taking dogs into a passenger train. Mr. Joy 'appeared for the defendant, and asked that the charge might be postponed until "Wednesday, as the defendant was not present. His Wor= ship said that the defendant's non-appear-ance almost amounted to a contempt of Court. If the case were adjourned, the accused would have to bear the expenses consequent upon his being so dealt with. Mr. Hesketh, who had been retained for the prosecution, stated that as no satisfactory reason had been given as to the cause of the defendant's absence, he would ask that the case be proceeded with at once. Hiw Worship agreed with Mr. Hesketh's remarks, and it was decided that the case should proceed. Mr. Joy said that as that was the determination of the Bench, he would decline to appear for the defence. The first charge—that of persisting in remaining on the verandah of the train while in motion—was then brought forward. Mr. Hesketh put in the by-law bearing upon the subject. Joseph Henry Holmes, ticket-col-lector on the Auckland and Mercer railway, deposed: Dance was a passenger on the 14th inst. by the 3.30 train from Auckland to Drury. On leaving Penrose station saw him standing on the railway verandah. Bouh the guard and I told him to go inside the train, as he was breaking one of the rules by staying where he was. He refused to do so, and on being asked his name would not give it. He remained on the verandah for four or five minutes longer, and then went into the train. Gave him no authority to stand outside the train. To the Bench : He gave his name at Papakura. Also saw his name on a way-bill which he had procured for his dogs. Samij-'l MarkwelJ, a guard employed on the same line, was next galled, and stated that, as guard, he had no power to allow anyone to remain on the railway verandah while the train was in motion. The remainder of his evidence corroborated the statement made by the previous witness in every particular. Augustus Vance Macdonald, general manager of the Auckland and Mercer Railway, was next examined, and said that he had given the defendant no authority to remain on the verandah. There was no one in Auckland at present besides himself who could have given such authority. This was all the evidence, and the Bench found the defendant guilty, but decided to hold over the sentence until the other charge had been heard, unless it was withdrawn by the manager of the railway. Mr. Macdonald said he wished the charge to be heard, as the practice of carrying dogs in the passenger trains was becoming quite a nnisancs. The case was accordingly gone on with. Joseph Henry Holmes, ticket-collector,-was again called, and deposed as follows:— When the defendant left the verandah and went into the train, I found a small dog in the carriage with him, and took charge of it, telling defendant that he was not allowed to carry dogs in t.he train. Defendant tried to prevent me from taking the dog. After leaving Papakurf, station found another dog in his charge. Defendant hadbookedthe dogs, but had not delivered them to the guard. Samuel Markwell, a guard on the line, deposed : Tied the dog which was taken from defendant in the break-van. The dog bit through the string by which he was fastened in the van, three times. The third occasion on which it set himself free, it jumped out of the window and was lost. The remainder of the guard's statement was substantially the same as that made by the former witness. Some discussion ensued between the Bench and the learned counsel in relation to several technical points. His Worship pointed ont that the offence referred to in the clause of the Act upon which the charge had been laid, was for persisting in "taking" a dog into the carriage, while the evidence shewed that the defendant had only persisted in keeping it when he had got it there. If the words, " And keeping it there," had been added to the clause, the matter would have been made quite clear. Mr. Hesketh said that by booking the dogs and taking them into the carriage, he must' have know he was acting wrongly. After some further discussion His Worship considered that the persisting in taking the dog was proved by the defendant refusing to give up the animal to the guard, and he therefore ordered him to pay a fine of 20s, and £3 10s costs in the first case; and a fine of 20s, and £3 7s 6d costs in the second case.

Sabbath-breaking.—Charlesßtmdasawas charged with working on the Freeman's Bay reclamation works on tha Lord's Day (Sunday), the I2th instant. The defendant admitted the charge, but urged, in extenuation, that it was alabour of necessity. If a storm had arisen I'looo worth of work would have been washed into the harbour in three hours. His Worship said that that was a work for his own private advantage, as there was no appearance of a storm arising, and the danger, therefore, was not imminent. If there had been no doubt but that » storm was really expected, then the aspect of the case would have been changed, and the work would have been one of necessity. Th® defendant argued that by the washing of £1000 worth of work into the harbour serious damage_wonld not only be done to himself bnt also to the Harbour Board, as tha silting up of the harbour would thereby be greatly facilitated. He would ask the case to be adjourned, in order that he might secure the attendance of seTeral witnesses. On the representation of His Worship that it would be much more expedient for him to have the case dealt with summarily, the defendant pleaded guilty, and a fine of 5a and 6s 6d costs was inflicted. . • This concluded the business.