LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6099, 4 June 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT.—Friday. [Before 11. C. Barstow, Esq., E.M.) ■Wife Desertion. — William Crowe was charged with deserting his wife, Mary Crowe. Mr. E. Cooper, for the defendant, applied for a remand until to-morrow. The remand was granted. . ; I:>cendia.-rism. —William V. Bindon anil James C. Bindon were charged with setting 'fire.'to the premises occupied by them in High-street as a beer-bottling establishment, the property of Christopher Greenaway. llr. E. Cooper appeared for the accused. He applied for a remand for a •week, and that they be admitted ! to bail. Mr. Pardy said he wonld object to their being admitted to bail, today. Probably the objection wonld bo withdrawn to-morrow. Mr. Cooper asked that the amount of bail might be fixed. His Worship said he would fix the bail for each, in his own recognisance, at £200, and two sureties of £100, but they would not be admitted to bail until the police withdrew their objections. ; ' Lahcest. —James McGourlay was charged ■with larceny of a suit of/clothes, value £3, the property of Thoiims Mooney, of the Great Barrier. He was also charged with stealiug a piece of cosmatique, value 11s, the property of Thomas Mooney. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. Pardy stated that a portion of the property had been found in prisoner's possession.- He asked for a remand for eight clear days, in order to send to the Great Barrier-for the prosecutor. The robbery was a most barefaced one. The accused was in .a state of destitution at the Barrier, and Mr. Mooney relieved him. He repaid his kindness by watching his opportunity to rob him. Remanded till the lotlv {'istant. ■ ■ £, \ Embezzlement. — Thomas Fcnton was charged with embezzling the sum of £1, the property of his employer, George Wilson. Mr. Tyler for the prosecution, and Mr. S. Hesketh for the defence. A plea of not guilty -(Vas entered. Mr. Tyler opened the case. The prosecutor was contractor for the removal of night soil, and defendant was in his employ. As such, he received £1 from Mr. Greenaway in payment for emptying cesspits, but he failed to account for it, and persisted that be had not received it. George Wilson deposed that defendant hai been m liis employ from December until last Tuesday. Withess>:eriiptied a cesspit for Mr. Greenaway, he charged £1, and he sent-'accused to collect the money. He afterwards asked accused if Mr. Greenaway had paid, and he replied, no. Witness saw Mr. Greenaway, who said he had fiaid, and he again spoke to accused, who still denied that Mr. Greenaway had paid him, or that he had ever l-eceived the money. Christopher Greenaway deposed to having paid the £1 to the accused, and produced the receipt which accused sigued in ■witness's presence. Jn cross-examination the witness proved most intractable, and His ■ Worship had to threaten to take means to compel him to answer the questions put to hkn. His Worship, after examining the bill, said, it was manifest that the whole story told by.Mr. Greenaway was a fabrication. The bill and signature were written at the same time, with the same pen, and for Mr. Greenaway to say that he supplied the pen and ink for the signature in his; awn office, was to say what was not true, j There was no use going further with the ■: case. If the prosecution relied on Mr. \ Greenaway's evidence, which was given iri: ..- such a shuffling and disgraceful manner that' he could not believe it, the case must fail, j Mr. Hesketh said the defendant positively; denied ever having received the money or j Signed a receipt for it. The cross- examina-j tion was continued, to elicit from the wit-! ness -when he received the bill, and thej witness refusing in an offensive manner to; answer, Mr. Hesketh applied to the Court: to have the witness committed. His Wor-J ship committed the witness to Mount EJon: Gaol for. seven days, unless he chose sooner! :to answer the questions. He was then/taken into custody by the'police, and led' out of Court. After a brief delay, during! -■which Mr. Tyler interviewed the witness in! the ante-roomy he returned toCpurt and stated! '. ' ;the witness had been under a misapprehension' las to his duties as a witness. He (Mr.; _i jTyler) had explained to him that he must :, answer the questions put to him, and thei

; witness promised to endeavour to do so. His w;- __jWorship permitted the examination of the proceed. He said the whole of the body of the bill had been filled :ja when he received it froin-theaccused, who signed it on receiving the money. ' Henryj '■ : Sankey, clerk to Mr. Wilson, deposed that, the bill produced was not in his writing. Hej • could not swear whose writing the signature; was. Mr. Heaketh asked whether His Wor-I ■ sliip thought there was a case for him to; .answer. His Worship said he would hear : the defence. Mr. Hesketh said the defence: .was a total denial. He asked what reliance could be placed on Mr. Greenaway's evidence, 1 -and upon that alone the prosecutiou rested.; ;He then proceeded to comment on the evidence. His Worship' said that there was .certainly no evidence to convict upon. and :he must dismiss the case. The defendant ;was then discharged. '■■•"' j „: Waterworks BY-LAWS Charles Jones' -waa charged with unlawfully removing from, ;the premises of Charles Veith, Queen-street,; - a certain pipe and water meter connected' with the waterworks, • without giving ; due' "notice-, as provided by the Municipal Uorpo-j -rations Act (section 252). He pleaded guilty. Mr. -Theo. Cooper appeared for the .Corporation. He said that owing to the' Action of .the defendant over 3000 gallons of water was lost, arid a good deal of damage was caused besides, owing to the flooding of i the cellars. He was fined 203, and co3ts ' :£2 13a. : ' . ; J Mastees' and Apprentices'Act.—Patrick ■ O/Keeffe and John Barton were charged under _ .tiia Masters' and Apprentices' Act, by ab- '. seating themselves from the employment of - George Foster. They pleaded guilty. They • only took half a holiday. Mr. Foster gave the boys an indifferent character. They - were each ordered to pay costs, 7s, and caur tioned, that if they were brought up again . they would be severely dealt with, ; .;.-' Nuisance troji a Bone-mill.—John Soppett was charged under the Public Health Act with carrying on an offensive business "iii Wellesley-street, by boih'ng, burning, and bones, causing an effluvia injurious to the health of the inhabitants. Mr. E. ■Hesketh' appeared for the and ■ - ..-'Mr.. J. B. Kussell with Mr. Theo. Cooper for - the prosecution. Mr. Hesketh contended

that the information was bad on the face of

■it, aa i'c disclosed two offences. Mr. Cooper _~-.-.replied:to.M r. fHcsketh's objection, .which, :be Contended, was a bare technicality. The summons embodied the section of the Public Health Act. .Mr. Hesketh argued the ■ iioint at considerable length. His Worship overruled the objection, and Mr. Hesketh . then pleaded not guilty. Mr. Cooper then - ■ opened the case. Proceedings were taken in ■. ■ consequence of a certificate signed by 52 residents complaining of the nuisance. After the adjournment a delay ensued before the' learned gentlemen engaged in the cause put in an appearance. When they did arrive, lir Russell first apologised to the Bench for the apparent contempt manifested in'keeping the Court waiting. There were a great number of witnesses, and:the evidence worildlie of a Very conflicting nature a3 to the ource of the nuisance. The witaess.es for the defence would depose that if was isausedby the defective character of a drain,'and those for the prosecution would depose that it Was-I caused by Mr. Soppett's works. During' the adjournment it had been suggested that the ease bo adjourned in order to give the City Council an opportunity Ho" repair the drain. If that: did not abate the nuibance, then Mr. Soppett would adopt : tlie suggestion of the inspector, and lay a pipe Jram to low water, and if the nuisance still' existed, it would be for the Bench to decide whether Mr. Soppett had used all available' means to abate the nuisance. Mr. Hesketh said that was the position of affairs. Neither one side nor the other admitted anything and all was without prejudice. His- Worship" Baid then the only question he had to decide was 03 to costs. Mr. Hesketh said they would hot trouble His Worship as -to costs thatday. Mr. Russellsaidthatno doubt those people who had set counsel in motion, and iiatigated.this action, would be satisfied ■with the remedial measures to be adopted without Xhe repairs to the main drain wottMbe a benefit to the district/ so alspjrGuTd the drain to be made by Miv if it was found to be required. Mf. Hesketh said if these men asked for costs after obtaining such a benefit to their neighbourhood, it would border on the unreasonable The ease was then adjourned to the 17th. instant.'