LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6097, 2 June 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT.— Tuesday. [Before Messrs. W. J. Hurst and C. C. McMillan, Justices.! I>RU>'KEirN"ESS.— Four persons were punished for ordinary offences, and Mary Burke, for habitual drunkenness, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Embezzlement. — Thomas Fontori was charged with embezzling £1, the property of his employer, George Wilson, on the Bth of March. Mr. Tyler appeared for the prosecution. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Be said that he was not prepared with his defence, and asked for an adjournment until Friday. Mr. Tyler did not object, and defendant was admitted to bail in his own bond of £20 and two sureties of £10 each or one of £20. Larceny.—John Shiers, on remand, was charged with stealing a roll of iiannel and some calioo, value £3. Mr. Pardy said that the police had been unable to find the owner, and he would ask leave to withdraw the charge for the present. The case was withdrawn.

Assault.—John Craig was charged with assaulting Anne de Bar. at the Great Barrier. Mr. E. Cooper for the prosecution, and Mr. Tyler for the defence. Mr. Cooper applied for a further remand of a week, as a principal witness for the prosecution had kept out of the way. Mr. Tyler objected to the remand. The charge was wholly unfounded, and it was monstrous that a man should be kept for such a length of time without being brought to trial. Defendant suffered considerable damage by being kept away from his business. I£ the adjournment was granted, he hoped it would be on the usual terms, payment of the costs of the day. , The Court wished to proceed with the hearing of the ease, and if it was ascertained that the nianin question, Whittle, was an important witness, they could then adjourn. Mr.. Tyler said they would consent to the adjournment on payment of costs of the day." Mr. Cooper contended that the costs should be costs of the cause. Mr. Cooper agreed that the case be adjourned till Friday week, arid that the costs be paid on that day; otherwise the case to stand dismissed. An order to. that effect was made. The costs were £1 lis. Defendant's bail was enlarged. Mr. Cooper applied for a warrant for the man Whittle to enforce his attendance. ' A subpoena had been issued, but the witness had kept out of the way. and the constable had been unable to serve it. He would call the constable to prove that fact. Constable Jones deposed that he went to the Barrier with the summons, but Whittle purposely kept out of his way, and he could not serve it. On one occasion he was within five yards of Whittle, but lie bolted into the bush. He had told several on the islaud that lie would not appear. The prosecutrix deposed that Whittle was a material witness in the case. . The Court, however, saw a difficulty in issuing a warrant, as a summons had been issued to the witness, and declined to grant the application. Dog Ncisasce Act.—Samuel Brennan and G. Yon der Hey do were charged with not. providing collars for their dogs. Mr. LaisUley, for the defendants, admitted the offence, but said collars had been taken out. Mr. Tardy said these were the first prosecutions under the new Act, and it was not intended to press for a penalty, he therefore asked that defendants be discharged with a caution. This was done. A case against Daniel Quinn, and another against Peter Hurley, was similarly dealt with. William Eyre, who was summoned for a similar offence, denied bavins a dog, and produce* a certificate from Messrs. Arthur and Co. that they had sold a dog for. Mr. Eyre in November last.. Mr. Eyre said this was the same dog. Mr..Goldie, Inspector under the Dog Nuisance Act, gave evidence of having seen the dog on Mr. Eyre's premises on the 3rd and 25th of May. He had on a last year's collar. William Munro deposed to seeing the dog about Mr. E3'je s premises on several occasions. The delendant deposed that the dog had been his, but he disposed o£ it. The dog came back but he hunted him awav and did all he could to get rid of him. The dog was sold by auction, and he did not know the owner further than that Mr. Arthur gave him the name of the purchaser as Brock. The case was dismissed.—Frederick Bannister was also charged under this Act. His plea was tnaj. the Sog did not belong to him, although is followed him. It originally belonged to his son. but was sold three years ago. Mr. Pardy said the defendant was fined last jear for not having registered the same dog. defendant promised to take out a collar, Mitt the case was adjourned for a week to allow him an opportunity to do so.