LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4459, 28 February 1876, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT.—Saturday. [Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., It.M.] Drunkenness—One man, for a first offence, and another for a second, were subjected to the usual alternatives of fine or imprisonment. Bigamy. —William Kelly wasbrought before the Bench, charged on the information of Detective Jeffrey, that he did, at Auckland, on the27th January, 1875, feloniously marry and take to wife one Emily McGlonne, his wife, Matilda Jones, to whom he was previously married on the 25th August, 1573, then being alive, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. On the application of Inspector Broham the case was remanded till Tuesday, bail being allowed, the prisoner himself in £150 and two sureties of £75 each. Scooting with Intent.—Percy Nowell appeared on remand, charged with this offence. Inspector Broham applied to have the charge withdrawn and another substituted. It appeared that the prisoner had been boarding in the house from which he had fired the shots, and, on the day in question, he ha J laid down, to sleep under the influence of drink. On waking, he found that his wife was not iu the house, and being excited by the liquor, he had walked on to the verandah with a loaded revolver in his hand, with which he told Mrs. Skirving he was going to shoot himself. That lady now states that he did not present it at her, but at the street, where he fired the three shots. The charge was accordingly dismissed. Discharging .Firearms. — The same prisoner was then charged with unlawfully discharging firearms within the limits of the city boundaries. Mr. Tyler appeared for accused, and pleaded guilty on his behalf, urging, however, as extenuating circumstances, that defendant had not been long in the colony, and was ignorant that he was acting wrongly. The young man, who was respectably connected, had been in the habit of practising with his revolver by firing at peaches on a tree in the yard, and no notice had been taken of his conduct. His Worship considered the offence was a rather serious one, and said that as the prisoner had already suffered four days' imprisonment he would not impose the highest penalty. As it was, he would fine him £3 and Gs Gel costs, with the alternative of fourteen days' imprisonment with hard labour. Vagrant Act.—Thomas Kirk pleaded not guilty to a breach of this Act, -by making useof obscenelanguage in a public street within the hearing of passera-by. Mr. Tyler ap-, peared for the defendant. In the absence of a witness whose evidence was material to the prosecution, Mr, Broham was about to apply for a remand, when the man put in an appearance Henry Swindley deposed that on the 22nd instant, while he was in Mrs. Well's shop in Wyndliam-street, the defendant came in and made use of the language complained of in a loud tone. The witness handed in a slip with the words written on it. Mr. Tyler objected, contending that the man should state in evidence the words lie had heard made use of. After some discussion, this course was followed. Emma Wells gave corroborative evidence. Constable Moar was then called and was handed a written slip containing the language made use of. Mr. Tyler again objected to this proceeding. It was simply putting words into the witness's mouth. Inspector Broham said it was the custom in all Police Courts in order to obviate the necessity of such beastly and abominable language being repeated. The witness then wrote down the words which he heard used. He was on the opposite side of the street, and heard the language. Mr. Tyler contended that there had been no evidence to support the case. The Act applied to indecent, obscene, or abusive language being used in the hearing of persons passing in the street. Now defendant was charged with using obscene, when he only used profane, language. Besides, the constable was not passing, but, according to his own evidence, was in a stationary position on the opposite side of the street. The Bench considered that none of the words made use of came uuder the category of obscenit3 r , and he wouid therefore have to dismiss the case. Inspector Broham thought this mode of procedure was raising nice distinctions between the words. He would only have to lay two fresh informations, which would cover the other two terms, "abusive" aud "indecent." The defendant was then discharged. Assault. —Washington Moore appeared before the Bench to answer a charge of having unlawfully assaulted his wife, Margaret Moore. Mrs. Moore applied for a remand, as her counsel, 'Mr. Joy, was unable to attend. Mr. Tyler, who appeared . for defendant, did not oppose the granting of this request, and the case was accordingly adjourned till Tuesday next.—William Bailey was charged with unlawfully assaulting one Robert Port at Ponsonby, by beating him " black and blue" about the legs. Defendant, who is the teacher of the Ponsonby District School, said that his Christian name was Benjamin, not William, and that he had caned the complainant. Air. W. Thorne appeared for the prosecution.—Robert Port, a lad of 15 years of age, deposed that on the afternoon of the 22nd inst., whilst going on a message for his mother along Ponsonby Road, he was accosted by defendant, who accused witness of being one of the boys who had whistled in his school. Witness replied that he had whistled outside the school. Defendant then caught him by the shoulder and leg, and carried him head downwards into the school, where he put him on the floor and caned him about the thighs and legs. After defendant had let witness go, he came after him and told him to go back to the school and put his hat on properly. Witness had put his hat on when leaving the porch. He, however, complied with the request. Was quite sure he had given no provocation to the master. All the time he was being punished he was imploring the master's pardon for having whistled. Walter Pitcher, an omnibus driver, deposed, that he had seen defendant catch complainant and carry him in-a rather rough manner to the school. To defendant: see the boy pick up scoria, neither did I hear him make use of bad language. Susanna Evitt deposed that while entering the 'bus at Ponsonby, she saw Mr. Bailey speak to the lad Port, shake him by the shoulders and carry him to the school The lad was not carried in. a gentle manner, as he was straggling violently all the time. Dr. Bayntun deposed that on Tuesday evening he was visited by the lad Port and his mother,. at whose request he made an ex--■animation of r complainant's , body. f Found 'several weals on the lad's thigh and a severe bruise on his left arm. He con- ' sidered the punishment inflicted more than , ordinarily severe. Benjamin Bailey, school- ' master at Ponsonby, said that on Tuesday morning, while the school children were; proceeding with their duties, the lad Port cAine to the Joon and. applying'his fingera to his mouth commenced .whistling. He con-

tinued this course for a long time, iu spitejof several* attempts made by witness to induce Ihiui to stop. it. In the afternoon bo met the : lad and talked to him calmly and kindly, fbut the lad ran to the centre of the road and 11 said he should . repeat-his ■ conduct if he • chose. He also commenced cursing and swearing, and throwing stones at witness, who caught hold of him- again' and endea- : voured to convey him to the school. The lad then began to bite and kick, and, in short, struggled so violently that witness was obliged to carry him by the shoulder and leg. In answer to questions from Mr. Thome, witness said lie was not enraged at the time, but was calm and collected, and that the punishment was inflicted : with a bamboo cane. Defendant called as a wituess Miss Lydia Carr, his assistant, who stated, in answer to a question from" him, that he did not press his knee on the boy's chest. Cross-exaniiued ; She only saw three blows struck, as the children came rushing into the school at the time, and she was obliged to turn her attention to them. Morton Jones said lie had been a member of the school conunittcc since Mr. Bailey had been appointed teacher of the district, and the only fault the committee had found with him was, that he was far too lenient in dealing with his scholars." An impression was extant to the effoct that Mr. Bailey was a severe master. This was wholly incorrect. The Bench considered that the boy had misbehaved, but that the master had used undue violence towards him. A box on the ear would have been sufficient punishment for the lad. As the costs would necessarily be heavy, a line of 20s only would be imposed. The costs amounted to £4 6s. This was all the business.