LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6214, 17 October 1881, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE. COURT.— Satorday. [Before J- E. Macdooald, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness.—Four persons were charged with this offence, and sentenced to be fined ss, or twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Brink and Disorderly.—James Donnelly was charged with this double offence, and fined 10s, or seven days imprisonment. Drunk and Indecent. — Mary Anne O'Brien was charged as above, and fined 20s, or l4i days' imprisonment. Delirium Trkmess.—Mary Anne Jones was brought up in custody of the police. She is a young but dissipated-looking woman, and was brought into town by a settler who found her in the bush. Mr. Pardy said that; the defendant was some time ago charged before Mr. Barstow with keeping a brothel. She promised to leave the town, but did not keep the promise. She was again charged with a similar offence when she made a similar promise, and went away from the town. She was found in the bush by a settler, who only succeeded in getting her to town after she made two attempts to drown herself. Remanded. | Perjquy.—Akinihi, a native woman, was again brought up upon a charge of having committed wilful and corrupt perjury, on the 6th of October last, in the Supreme Court, by charging Rudolf A. Subritzky with rape. The facts of this case have been published at length. Mr. Coleman appeared for the prosecution. Mr. Laishley appeared for the prisoner, and said there was no case upon which the Court would be j ustified in committing the prisoner for trial. The fact that the present complainant was acquitted of the charge at the Supreme Court should not be taken into account in the present inquiry. Moreover this was a private prosecution, and was open to suspicion arising out of the position of the parties. In the next place no jury would convict upon the evidence which had been adduced to establish this •harge of perjury. It was almost all family evidence, and there were several inconsistencies in it. Besides, the periods of time sworn to did not exclude the possibility of the offence. He (Mr. Laishley) contended that the alibi was unreliable. It was also worthy of consideration that the learned Judge of the Court above had not instituted the prosecution. His Worship decided to commit the prisoner Agnes for trial. The evidence was read over to the prisoner, and she was committed for trial accordingly. Conspiracy.—Mr. Coleman said : As to the charge of conspiracy against Agnes, Hone, and Zachariah, I am instructed that certain Europeans at Mangonui are connected with it, and that they ought to be charged together with these prisoners. The evidence as yet collected is incomplete, and I have, therefore, advised the prosecutor to withdraw the charge for the present, with a view to bringing it forward at a future time. The prisoners were discharged. Perjury.—The charge of perjury against Zaehariah was also withdrawn.

Violent Assault.—John Russell, mate of the s.s. Te Atiau, was brought up on a charge of violently assaulting George Wilson, one of the men employed on board that vessel. Mr. Laishley appeared for the complainant ; Mr. E. Cooper for the defendant. The complainant's face was covered with blood, and a severe wound had been inflicted at the outer extremity of the left eye. The charge set forth that the assault was committed with the defendant's clenched fist, but the wound was more severe than would have been inflicted in that way. Mr. E. Cooper said the defendant pleaded guilty to the assault, but he urged the provocation given in mitigation of punishment. His Worship : But the complainant demands ureties of the peace against the defendant. Mr. Laishley said iie would be willing to withdraw that demand, if the captain would give the complainant his discharge from the ship and pay his wages to date. Mr. Coopor : I believe the man is not on the ship's articles, and that can be done. His Worship : I can understand that if a man is lazy, and will not work, such conduct is very provoking. But this assault was committed while the yessel was in port, where the proper remedies could be enforced against the idle workman. As to the assault being with the clenched fist only, it was evident from the marks on complainant's face that something more that a man's fist had made the mark. The Court was not disposed to believe that there was an "armed hand" engaged in this assault. There might have been a ring, or something of that kind on the hand, which made a more severe wound. The defendant is fined £G for the assault, with costs, £3 12s. The fine was immediately paid.