LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 5997, 5 February 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COUIST. -Peiday. [Before 14. C. ISanton, Fsj , II.JL) ■DIiUSKEXjnSsS AND OteOEMTY. _ Mary -Ann Alexander was charged witli having been drunk, also with nuking use of .obscene language in a public phce—LorneStree*. She pleaded guilty to the first charge, but not guilty to the second. Constable Dews, who arrested -the prisoner, proved the case. For the latter offence she ■ was fined 40s and costs, or (in default) a month's imprisonment ; and for the first a fine of 5s and costs, or 24 hours , imprisonment with hard labour. Ff.uit — Ernest Youn", 10 years, and Herbert Young, 9 years, pleaded not guilty to a charge of stealing fruit, worth 6d, the property of John Bownman, Kemuera They were each fiued Is and 7s costs or (in default) seven days' imprisonment with hard labour. Ax Abscoxdek. —Thomas Kuox admitted having absconded from the Howe-street Industrial School. He was ordered to be returned to the school.

Larceny.—Kapia Tataraka and Thomas ' Uheavel were charged with stealing two saddles worth £10, the property of Richard Allan White, of East Tamaki." Mr. Tyler appeared for Wheavel. Sergeant α-vmble asked permission to withdraw the charges. The case was a very suspicious one, but the police were unable to obtain sufficient evidence. Mr. Tyler said that there was not the slightest grounds for suspicion against his client. Ho wasiii the habit of making most extraordinary statements, and it was suspected that his mind was not altogether right. The prisoners were then diseliar.cd. faLY Groo-seu.ixo. —Julia Wilson was charged with selling five glasses of brandy to Harry Hayman, she not being duly licensed. She pleaded guilty. Mr. Tyler, who appeared for the prosecution, addressed the Court. He said the fact of there being three cases of this kind before the Court showed that sly grog-selling was becoming very prevalent. In tin's case the defendant was the keeper of a brothel, in another the accused was the keeper of a small restaurant, and the third claimed to be the keeper of a Workng Men's Club. When the police went into Wilson's house they found drinkin" on in a way which showed that it was habitual. He appeared for the Licensed Victuallers' Association, and asked the Bench to impose, not a nominal penalty, but a severe one. They had the evidence of two witnesses that the drink was sold, and Is a drink charged for it.. Defendant denied that she made any charge ; the gentlemen asked for a drink, and she gave it to them. A fine of £5 and costs, £3'ss, was imposed. Another Case. — Frank St. Aurin, a coloured man, was charged with selling a bottle of beer without a license. He admitted having supplied the beer to the man, with his supper at his restaurant: 3s 3d was paid altogether for two suppers anil the beer. Mr. Tyler_ prosecuted on behalf of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, and stated the facts of the case. The two people went to have supper, and he supplied them with a bottle of beer, which he took out of a cupboard. They were drinking it when the detectives went in. They found a quantity of beer in the cupboard. The defendant kept a small restaurant. If these people were allowed to thus sell liquors there would be no use in people taking out licenses. Defendant had come to the Peliee Court and wanted to pay the fine and lie done with it. He now pleaded that it was his first appearance in Court. Fined £o and £2 9s costs.

A Third Case.—Henry Leon was chargec with selling two glasses of beer without ." license. Mr. Theophilus Cooper appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Tyler for tlif prosecution. A plea of not guilty was entered, and witnesses were ordered to leav< the Court. Mr. Tyler asked to put in tin Provincial Act of IS7I, but Mr. Cooper ob jected. He was charged with a distinct oft'encs under the Licensing Act, 1573. Mr. Tylei said the Aut of 1871 was incorporated witl that of 1573, and he only desired to put it ii to place a construction on the Act. He tiiei opened the case. The defendant occupied ; bouse on -the Great North Road, for whiel he had applied for a license. ' That being re fused, he started what he called a Workim Men's Club. Mr. Hayman went in there, and after sorne conversation about his becom ing a 'member, he ordered drinks, whiel were supplied to him. Subsequently Ik and a Mr. Blake were served witl liquor, and.-while they were drinking ii the detective, unfortunately for them. came. - Mr. Cooper asked whether after -witnesses were ordered out of Court! Detective Jeffrey.should have remained, ant be passing iu and out to the witnesses. His Worship said he should have left the Courl with the other witnesses. Mr. Cooper asked that he should not be allowed to leave the Court until the conclusion of the case, and his "Worship ordered accordingly. Harry Hayden deposed that he went to defendant's house to become a member of the club, and had . a conversation with the defendant ou the subject. Defendant said he would propose him on the following Thursday. Witness put his name- on the list, and paid Js entrance fee. "Witness asked if he could have a glass of beer, and lie got it, defendant taking a small glass of lemonade and beer. Witness placed Is on the bar, and received 3d change. The bar had the appearance of ah ordinary public-house bar! While he was present a child came with two bottles iu a basket, which defendant filled from the cask. Mr. Cooper objected to this evidence. It was not fair to the defendant to give evidence of another charge in order, to influence the mind of the Court. The .charge was for" supplying liquor to Blake at night, not with regard to what took place in the afternoon. The witness deposed that he returned at 10 o'clock at "night with Robert Blake, and asked for Mr. .Leon. They went into the sitting-room and Blake called for drinks. Witness took beer, Blake took whisKy, and defendant had a drink'and fetched, them in. Blake put a florin on the table, wliich was taken 'up by Mrs. Leon just as Jeffrey and Jones came ig'" Jeffrey asked: if they were members r , '"'* - club. Witness said lie was" as-"**"'"' '"+T" member, that he was a 3a,d he was »U^K then and seeing : the the table, he asked whose it was. Mi-s. Leoii endeavoured to pass it over to Blake, and' asked him to take it for her sake,' and say they had not paid for it; At , this stage Mr. Cooper drew the attention of the Court to the fact that Constable Jones, who was a witness in this case, was in Court. He submitted that it was most" improper for the police thus to disobey the order of the Court. (Jones, who had appeared at the door of th« Court, had.by .this time disappeared, and the examination was resumed.) Blake had an altercation with Jeffrey, because the latter drank his whisky. Cross-examined : He had seen Jeffrey, before he went to Loon's, but had no conversatiqrf.with hini regarding this matter, and gave no information to the-police'either regarding this case or that of Julia Wilson. He was with Blake at St. Aurin's restaurant when the detectives came in on. the same night. Mr. Tyler objected, but Mr. Cooper said his object was to show that it was a concerted jjlot, that the witness was a common informer, and that the whole matter of the 2s was a trap—that it was never paid for the liquor. His Worship said that, even if he was a common informer, liis evidence must be received. The cross-examination was continued"at considerable length. He swore positively that the 2s piece was tendered in payment for the drinks when they' were brought in. He hail a little whiskers'when he went to Leon's, bu'ttUe^-w^ve - riot false ; but he had since jriTaved. them off, as it was very hot, a)r?i the mosquitoes were biting Blake, "a ship's steward by -fjfolessionjV gave corroborative evidence. He was disgusted at the detectives mucking about at his whisky, one smelling it, and another tasting it. He had never been to the house before, arid was not a member of the club, and had never seen Mr. Leon at all before this. He did not know Detective Jeffrey when he came in. Witness ordered the drinks. It was not Leon who asked them to have a drink. Detective Jeffrey also gave evidence. When witness went in Leon said the two witnesses were members and he had a right to sell to them. Crossexamined-. He had seen Hayman and Blake before about this business. Constable Jones, who accompanied Jeffrey to Leon's house, was also examined. Ho ■ knew Blake and.Hayman were going to Leon's house, for Jeffrey had told him so. They went xip about 10 o'clock, shortly after. Blake and Hayman. There" was no ime specified at which they were to be met. Mr. Cooper stated the case for the defence, which was that the liquors were supplied by ; Leon, as a 'treat from himself. It was not or sold. It was in fact a plant. . jk'-yijuva claimed to be a countryman of aca^^ rms the da J'> aud Blako claimed Leon -inicr..l t>? ~ ay "! an ß aveL «<»»thelolließ, Jx;on aeKc.il them to i mve a drink, and thev accepted. Ho pointed out thnt ytho evident I

of Blake and Hayman was contradicted by the police, the former denied knowing Jeffrey at all, but according to the evidence of the detective it was shown that it was a pre-arranged plan. All Courts set themselves against such deliberate traps, a preconcerted plan like this, whatever public good might be derived from informers. It was improper to procure the commission of a crime for the purpose of procuring a conviction, and he felt quite sure the Court would not lend itself to the police. He commented on Hayman's character and conduct, also on the evidence of Blake, as being unworthy of credit. He called the defendant, who gave evidence corroborative of the statements of the learned counsel. Witness was secretaiy of the Archhill Working Men's Club. He supplied Hayman in the afternoon with lemonade and cloves, but not with beer, as he was not a member. He spoke in German to witness, told him where he was born, &c. In the evening, Hayman introduced Blake, who claimed to know defendant, and said lie had sailed with him in different boats. Hayman drew out a packet of lollies for the child, and after some conversation, witness asked them to have a drink. They accepted, and he brought them in. Just then, Jeffrey came in and commenced swearing, and pushing things about in such a manner as to frighten his child and wife. He never took the money, never saw it until Jeffrey came in. What less could he do than offer them a drink when they claimed friendship as old stewards, and brought a parcel of lollies to his child ! It was a mean trap. He had now been in business for 12 years, and the police never had reason to complain of him. He was cross-examined at some length as to the club. He was a paid servant of the club. He positively denied having sold any drinks to Hayman and Blake on the night in question. Mrs. Leon gave corroborative evidence. She did not see the 2s piece until after Jeffrey came in. She complained that Jeffrey came in withoutknocking, ate the lollies without being asked, and made use of very bad aud improper language. She did not expect to be paid for the drinks, and she told Blake if the money was his to put it in his pocket. She was indignant at the trap that she saw had been laid, and did not implore Blake to take the money back to save her husband. Her husband demanded to know whose the money was, and insisted on his taking it back. John Simpson, a builder, gave evidence as to the Working Men's Club, of which defendant was secretaiy. Witness was a member, and believed it to be a hand, fid' club. He came in just after Jefrey had left. Sirs. Leon was very much excited. He distinctly heard Leon decline to take the two-shilling piece from the fellow who had lost his whiskers. His Worship said he could not convict in this case, as the evidence of the two first witnesses had been so much discredited by what had fallen from the police, as well as by the witnesses for the defence.

Sunday Liquor Traffic.—Francis MeCormick was charged with selling liquor to John Ross, after midnight, at his licensed house, the Prince of Wales Hotel. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and Sergeant Gamble asked to withdraw the charge, as the police had heen unable to find the man to whom the liquor was sold. His Worship said he would allow the case to be withdrawn, but he warned Mr. McCormiek that had the charge been sustained, the house would have lost its license, and lie would be prohibited from ever holding a license again. He wished to have this publicly known as a caution to all publicans. Donald McGregor was charged with supplying liquor on Sunday from his licensed house, the Waitemata Hotel. Sergeant Gamble prosecuted, and Mr. Tyler, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded not guilty. Charles Wilson, boardinghonse-keeper, Cus-tom-house-street, was the first witness called. He went into the hotel, but he only got change that he wanted, and no drink. Constable O'Connor came tohis house immediately after, and asked him if he had a drink. He replied in the affirmative, for he had served himself at his own house. He got no drink at the Waitemata Hotel; that lie swore positively. The man for whom he got the change had a drink with him alter lie returned. Cross-examined : The constable said he had a down on the defendant, and that he would like to get him in for it if lie could. James Smith; a seaman, denied that he had any drink at the Waitemata Hotel, although he went into the house on the night in question with a friend to settle a bet, over which they had a dispute. Cross-examined : The constable who was standing outside when he came out asked him what he had to drink, and he replied that he had nothing. Afterwards the constable met him, and said that McGregor acknowledged to having served him with drink. He said he had a down on McGregor, and wanted to get a case against him. It was the day after the regatta, and there were crowds around. Charles Johnson, cook of the Lancashire Lass, who was with tlie last witness at the hotel, corroborated his evidence. They had tno drink in the hotel. They only went in in consequence of au argument about a race in the regatta. William Davy also gave evidence. He denied having anything to drink in the Waitemata. Sergeant Gamble said that, under the circumstances, the Bench would no doubt dismiss ihe case, but it was in consequence of what Wilson had told the constable, saying that he had drink there, and had seen others drinking, that the case was brought. The case was dismissed. Indecent Assault,—Frank McCormiek, a respectable looking tradesman; was charged with indecently assaulting a female.in the Domain. Mr. Tyler for the defendant, admitted that a-technical assault had been committed, but as it was not an aggravated offence, the Bench only imposed a mitigat; '.■ fiue of 40s, and £2 Is costs. ■ "\,i"