POLICE COURT.—Friday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6063, 23 April 1881, Page 5

POLICE COURT.— Friday.

[Before E. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M.] — Three persons were punished for this offence. Larceny. — John Allen, on remand, was charged with stealing a pool basket and 16 billiard balls, value £S, the property of "William Hamley. Mr. Tole appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Mr. Pardy said that since the remand the police had made enquiries, and found that accused had bought the balls from a man now in custody. Under these circumstances he would ask to withdraw the charge. Accused was discharged. Sunday Liquor Tbaffic.—John Grogan, lessee of the Queen's Head Hotel, was charged with supplying beer to Margaret Sutton, on Sunday the 10th of April. Mr. Tyler, for the defendant, pleaded not guilty. Margaret Sutton, a child eleven years of age, was examined as to the nature of an path, and was sworn. She lived with her mother. She was sent on the Sunday before last by a man for beer, and went to the Queen's Head Hotel, Upper Queen-street. She got a pint of beer, and was supplied by the defendant, to whom she gave 4d. She took the beer home, and gave it $o the man in Mrs. Lamb's place, next door to her own mother's place. Mrs. Lamb was not present, but witness's mother was. She brought a bottle, and defendant gave her the beer at the back door. Elizabeth Sutton, mother of last witness, remembered her daughter being sent for a pint of beer, which she brought back. Witness drank some of the beer, but did not ask her where she got it. (His Worship : She evidently knew where to go for it.) Sergeant Clarke deposed that the little girl pointed out the defendant as the man who served her with the beer. She had no hesitation, and was quite positive. Mr. Tyler addressed the Court for the defence, commenting on the fact that the only evidence was that of the child, whose memory could not bo so good as that of a grown person. He called the defendant, who deposed that on last Sunday week lie was in the hotel at 11 o'clock in the morning. He did not see the child all that day, and. he did not serve her with beer. A . man who was lodging in the house with him was present with him all day, and must have seen him serve her had ho done so. John Strathaway, the man referred to, gave corroborative evidence. From whore he was he must have seen Grogau serve the beer had ho done so. Thie witness was closely questioned by Mr. Pardy, and the strength of his testimony was considerably shaken, but His Worship said the weight of witnesses was in defendant's favour, and he must dismiss the case. Another Case.—Same defendant was then charged with supplying beer on Sunday, 10th instant, to Kato Lamb. Mr. Tyler for the defendant pleaded not guilty. Kate Lamb, a child 10 years old, who had never been to school, but attended the Sunday - school in the Alexandrastreet chapel, was examined as to the nature of an oath, but she did not display the necessary..knowledge. Mr. Tyler said aa the evidence in this case -was the sameas in''thej last, was-it, .he asked, worth, while jyasrino i the-*time~tif ~the.: Courtniniitoiiia..

through the evidence ? How could the Bench convict on the evidence of such a witness, who displayed no knowledge of the sanctity of an oath, when the defendant had already sworn positively that he did not see the girl at all on that day. His Worship further questioned the girl, but could make nothing of her. The case was dismissed. Another Case.—John Gillander, licensee of the Pacific Hotel, was charged with supplying beer to Charles Crowell and George Bining on Sunday, the 3rd instant. Mr. Tyler, for the defendant, pleaded not guilty. Charles Crowell, a carpenter,. deposed that the Pacific Hotel faced Queen-street, and had an entrance from Lorne-strcet. AVitness went in by the back way with Bining, and walked to the bar, where they were supplied with two pints of beer. They subsequently returned and had another pint each. Witness paid for both. The landlord was in a back room. The witness was cross-examined at some length. George Bining was (Killed. He denied having gone into the hotel with Crowell at all. He went into tho yard for shelter. He Trent to the Western Springs at 20 minutes to 8 o'clock, and did not return till 6 in the evening. He heard Sergeant Clarke tell Crowell to go home, as he was drunk. This was about a quarter to 7 o'clock. He killed four bullocks, fourteen sheep, and some lambs on that day while he was at the Springs. Sergeant Clarke deposed to seeing Crowell and Bining coming out ef the Pacific Hotel at 25 minutes to 9 o'clock. Biuing cleared away. Crowell pointed out the barman as the man who served him. The barman denied it, and they left. The defence was a total denial of the truth of Crowell's statement. The barman was called, and denied that Crowell was in the house at all on Sunday. He came in on Tuesday and asked for beer, but witness refused to serre him, and he then threatened to make it hot for witness. George Thorogood and Thomas O'Keeffe were examined. Mr. Tyler offered to put other witnesses in the box to disprove Crowell's evidence, but His Worship deemed it unnecessary and dismissed the case. Another Licensing Case.—John C. Seccombe was charged with not having three bedrooms furnished and fit for public use. Defendant pleaded guilty. The house was about to be renovated, and he did not think it wise to furnish it until it was re-roofed, &c. He was informed that he should have applied to the Licensing Bsncb, but, under the circumstances, no penalty was imposed.

Neglecting to Pay Fares. —Hyam Hart was charged with a breach of the Public Works Act, by travelling in a railway carriage from Ngaruawahia to Auckland, without having paid the proper fare. Patrick Cox, guard on the Auckland railway, said he asked Mr. Hart for his ticket, between Huntley and Taupiri. He held the ticket produced up in his hand, and witness took no notice. At Newmarket, he produced the same ticket. It was a single, not a return, and should have been given up to the station-master. Hart said he had paid £ 1 for the ticket, and wonld pay no more. Witness acknowledged that the clerk told him defendant had paid the price of a return ticket, but even had it been a return ticket, it would not be available on the fourth day. Defendant said ever Bince the line opened, he had been in the habit of travelling once a month on this line, and the «lerk made a mistake in issuing a single ticket. The charge was withdrawn, as it was manifest carelessness on the part of the ticket clerk. '- ; ■ '

CRIMINAL- XIBEL- : HURST V. WICKHAM. John D. Wickham appeared to answer the following information, sworn to by William John Hurst, one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the Colony of New Zealand : —That John Diekson Wickham, of Auckland, did, on or about the 19th March, 1881, unlawfully and maliciously write, print, and publish, or cause and procure to be written, printed, and published, in a certain newspaper named the Auckland Free Lance, a certain false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel of and concerning the said William John Hurst—that is to say, as follows ; "We are aware that the pompous idiot under notice (meaning thereby W. J. Hurst aforesaid) has never been openly accused in Queen-street of incendiarism (meaning thereby that the said W. J. Hurst had been openly accused of incendiarism, and had been unable to dispose of the accusation), has never been strongly suspected of annexing a rich qaurtz specimen (meaning that the said W. .J. Hurst had been suspected on strong and reasonable ground of the crime of stealing a valuable specimen of gold-bearing quartz), has never paid Is 6d in the pound, and afterwards stocked a fine estate with imported pigs and cattle (meaning thereby that the said W. J. Hurst had defrauded his creditors by paying a composition of Is6d in the pound upon his debts, and fraudulently using the money of his said creditors to purchase and stock a fine estate with imported cattle and pigs). Everybody knows that these things never happened (well, hardly ever). We are strongly of opinion that the Government should strike the name of the said W. J. Hurst, or failing his taking the hint, to strike his name off the roll. (Meaning thereby that it was the duty of the Government to strike the name of the said W. J. Hurst off the roll of magistrates by reason of his having been guilty of incendiarism, theft, and fraudulent bankruptcy.) Probably, however, in view of the marketable value, on the eve of a division, the present Government will allow him still to remain a disgrace to the Bench, and a scandal to the community." (Meaning thereby that the said W. J. Hurst remaining in the honourable position of a Justice of the Peace, is lowering to the character of the Magistracy of the colony of New Zealand, and a scandal to the community, in consequence of his having been guilty of incendiarism, theft, and fraudulent bankruptcy, and that the said W. J. Hurst was not a proper person to be a Justice of the Peace, and did not possess the character which ought to belong to a Justice of the Peace, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.) The Court had been adjourned from 1 to

.: o'clock, and at the latter hour tho magistrate took his seat on the Bench. Learned counsel on both sides appeared, and the def.'jitlant was called, but did not appear. The Court waited for ten minutes. His Worship remarked on the disrespect paid by the defendant to the Court in keeping the Court ten minutes waiting. Mr. Tyler said if the defendant was not present at the quarterpast the hour he would apply to the Bench for a warrant for his arrest. His Worship directed the Court orderly to go in search of the defendant. At a quarter-past 2 Mr. Tyler applied for a warrant for the apprehension of the defendant. He should have been present at 2 o'clock, and his absence showed great disrespect to the Bench. They could not allow the case to drop because the defendant did not appear, and the only course left was to apply for a warrant for his apprehension, and that application he now made. Mr. Whitaker said he could not account for Mr. Wickham's absence. He had been in Court all the forenoon, but he had no doubt lie would be able to make'a sufficient explanation for his absence. His Worship said he would wait the return of the Court orderly. Mr. Whitaker said that was all he asked; although Mr.

Wickham's absence had the appearance of disrespect to the Court, he was sure none was meant. At this stage Constable MeClellan returned to Court unable to find the defendant, and Mr. Tyler renewed his application for a warrant, which the Bench decided to issue. At twenty-five minutes past 2 the defendant came into Court, and it was agreed to go on with the case. As he took his place at the bar, he was arrested under the warrant, and placed in the dock. Mr. Whitaker applied that the defendant be allowed to stand behind his counsel. His Worship asked the defendant to explain why he had kept the Court waitin. Mr. Wickham said he could only

apologise for having delayed the Court. He mistook the hour of the adjournment. He had been waiting in Court all the morning. His Worship said none of tho rest mistook the hour, and the counsel on both sides were present. He, however, accepted the apology, and allowed the defendant to stand behind his solicitor. The information was then read over to the defendant. Mr. Tyler, instructed by Mr. H. H. Lusk, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. A. E. Whitaker.for tho defendant. Mr. Tyler, in opening the ease, said the information was laid under the sth .'section of the sth and 7th of Victoria, commonly called Lord Campbell's Act, which ivns brought into force in tho colonics, and which provided for punishment by fine, imprisonment, or both. The libel complained of was contained in an article in the Auckland Free Lance of March 19, 1831, °f which the defendant was proprietor and publisher. He did not know that he need read the. whole article, for they did not complain. that it was all libellous, but he would read the information, which set forth the innuendoes, and in doing so he pointed but that the. word .'.'never" was invariably italicised in it. Bench -would Bee that --they in

these innuendoes contained three charges— \ first, of incendiarism ; second, of theft; and third, of fraudulent bankruptcy. They set forth those three offences ; and, by the evidence which lie would adduce, he would establish that these, accusations were absolutely false. It was not a question for this Court as to whether the language in thel ibel was true or false. He quoted the case, Lawson v. Labouchere, in support. He also quoted from the law of libel and slander, and pointed out that, on the proof of the publication of the libel, it was the duty of the Magistrate to commit for trial. It was only necessary for him to point out that the language was libellous. It would be a waste of time for him to refer to the article, the language of which was so full of meaning, and apparent to any one who read it, so he would not waste time in discussing that question. The publication could be proved iu two ways, and he would proceed to prove it. He then proceeded to point out the nature of the evidence, which he was about to produce. Joseph Sykes, clerk in Mr. H. H.- Lusk's office, deposed that he purchased copies of the Free Lance containing the article complained of, at the office of the Auckland Free Lance, Vulcan Lane, on the 2nd inst. (Paper put in evidence, dated March 19.) He attended the Registrar's Office on Thursday last. 14th, to obtain copy of the affidavit filed of the proprietorship of the Free Lance, under the Printers and Newspapers Act,

IS6S. Mr. Hudson Williamson is the Registrar, and witness since obtained from him the certified copy now produced, dated 21st April. William John Hurst deposed : I reside at Lake Takapuna, and am a merchant by occupation. I am also a Justice of the Peace and a member of the House of Representatives. I have seen the article in evidence of the Auckland Free Lance, March 19, ISSI. The W. J. Hurst referred to in \hat article is myself. My name has very frequently appeared in other publications of the Auckland Free Lance. I know the defendant, John Dickson 'Wickham. I have spoken to him frequently about my name appearing in the Auckland Free Lance. I spoke to him because I supposed him to be the writer of the articles, and the conductor of the Lance newspaper. He never in any of these conversations denied that he was connected with the Free Lance. He certainly admitted it inferentially. He applied to me repeatedly for advertisements for the Auckland Free Lance. That was long previously to the issue of the paper (March 19, 1SS1). I never gave him an advertisement. In consequence of my refusal to give him advertisements, most generally his observations was that he would make it exceedingly hot for me if I did not give him advertisements, but upon two occasions he said that he would ruin me socially and unless I gave him an advertisement, and he used strong language in addition. On the second occasion it was after some article that appeared against me of a severe character, and I remonstrated with him, and then lie said, "I told you what I would do with you unless you gave me that 'ad.'" He used similar language to what he had used before. The second occasion was previous to March 19, ISSI. He has not yet compelled me to give him an advertisement. I have never spoken to hiin about the article appearing in-the issue March 19, ISSI. The article insinuates that I have been guilty of three distinct crimes—one of incendiarism, one of theft, and one of fraudulent bankruptcy. With regard to the first—on two occasions premises owned or occupied by me have been burnt down. On one occasion they were owned: by myself jointly with another named Dillon, and on the second occasion only occupied in Queen-street. On the first occasion the premises were at Coromandel, which were destroyed by fire. The premises consisted of a hotel and store, detached. I was not upon the premises when they were destroyed, for some hours previously to the fire. I did not set fire to them myself, nor procure anyone else to do so. Certainly not.. I h?,ve not, nor had I at any time, any knowledge of who did set them on fire. An inquest was held at the time— 18 ye&rs ago—and the verdict was "No evidence to show how the fire had originated." [At this stage His Worship asked whether it was necessary to go into this evidence. Mr. Whitaker said they did not accuse Mr. Hurst of incendiarism; the article merely said that Mr. Hurst had never been accused.] I have no recollection of being accused of incendiarism in Queenstreet. Something may have been said at election times. I was never charged in any Court. There was :ao charge that I could take any notice of. Some drunken man may have said so, but I take no notice of such. In regard to the annexing of the specimen, I slept in a hotel, and saw in the proprietor's hands a specimen which I would have valued about £2 or £3. The following morning the proprietor, to whom I was then a stranger, asked me if I had the specimen, as he remembered me as the last person to whom he had shown it the night before. This was when I was in bed the Eollowiug morning. I need not say I never took his specimen, and I know no more about it. The owner, who was in a state of intoxication, was showing the specimen around in a public bar. This was eighteen and a half or nineteen years ago. I was obliged to make arrangements with my creditors in 1870 or 1871, owing to adversity of others. I made arrangements to pay my creditors 3s 6d in the £1, which I paid them, and received their discharge in full. Since that time, with two exceptions, I have paid every one of them 20s in the £1. About the time I paid the 3s 6d in the £1, that sum was, according to my books, what the estate would pay, and according to the creditors' accountant, and, as subsequent events showed, it was what the estate would pay. I did not afterwards stock an estate with imported pigs and cattle out of moneys that should have then gone to my creditors. I had no imported stock till after I returned from England. I have not discovered that I have any marketable value to the Government. I have never received any consideration for my vote in the Assembly j*'on the contrary, great popular disfavour on account of my a«tion. Mr. Tyler: You ai - e one of those .unfortunate members who ratted ? Mr. Hurst: I object to the term. I was one of the honourable members who discharged a difficult duty according to my conscience, and turned. I have no regrets about my action on that occasion. I did not saj unfortunate. This was all the evidence offered. Mr. Whitaker declined to cross-examine, and defendant reserved his defence. The evidence was read over to the defendant, and he was committed to take his trial at the next criminal Kitting of the Supreme Court. Bail was allowed to defendant in his own bonds of £200, and two sureties of £100 each.