LAW AND POLICE.
SUPREME COURT. —Criminal Sittings. Wednesday, Afbil stii. [Before Mr. Justice Gillies.l His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 10 o'clock. t, i , An Unfashionable Marriage.—RachaeL Voians, described as 35 years of age, but looking dissipated, and much older, wis arraigned upon an indictment charging het withbigamy in having intermarried with one William Donlan, her husband, Richard Voians, being then living. The prisoner was at large on bail until the previous day, when, beiuf found the worse for liquor outside the Court the Crown Prosecutor applied that I she should be called on her recognizance and that upon surrendering she be committed to custody until she was put upon her trial. When challenged to plead this morning, she answered that she was guilty, that she was drunk at the time of the second man iagc, and had been drinking for seven weeks before. —His Honor : The depositions in this case are rather meagre. In passing sentence, it is desirable to know the circumstances in which the offence was committed, I should like to hear what Donlan has to say. Let him be eallcd.—Donlan, the "second husband," emerged from the crowd in Court. He seemed an unkempt individual in corduroy. His forehead exhibited fxveral bruises, a«d the left side of his face was similarly malted. He had also a dissipat.'u look, and according to his own account, he must have b»cn a most unpromisiug bridegroom.—His lienor: \on I married this woman? How 2o "S clu ' >' ou knov," her ? —Witness : I d«f ; I knew her for rears.—His Honor: i>id you not know that" she was a marred woman : did you know her husband \ olan ?—NN ltness : I knew Vol;"'- I did not know they were married. -I together. Honor : Did you live with her? V\ itues* : I did not when Yolan was with her. j/is Honor : But you did live with her. Did you ask her to marry you, or did she ask you to marry her?— The witness (in a ceremonious manner) : \\ ell, she said what do you say, dear, if we go and get married. —His Honor : How long wore you engaged before'you got married to her? --NVitness : About "ten minutes, certainly not twenty.
She said, what do you say to go raid get married ? —His Honor : In what state was she when she was married to you—do you remember ?—Witness : Well, your Honor (gravely), she — was — inebriated. — His Houor : How long die 1 you live with her after you and she went through the ceremouy ?— Witness : Half an hour.—His Houor : How was that ?—Witness : Well, your Houor, I . gave her a sovereign. Sho got something to drink. She came back, gave me Ss of it, and told me to go to . His Honor: What did you do then ? —Witness : I went to . His Honor : You may stand down, —Mr. Way land, Registrar of Births, Deaths, j and Marriages, proved the second marriage. The prisoner appeared to be slightly under the influence of liquor. She was not drunk. She seemed to know perfectly what she was about.—His Honor : I shall defer sentence in this case until the other case of bigamy is disposed of. Cattle Stealing. — Grove Vowles*, a settler in the Waikato district (near Hamilton), was arraigned upon a second indictment charging him with stealing, on the Bth of November last, a steer, the property of Isaac Coates, a contractor and farmer, living near Hamilton. The facts of this case were embraced in the evidence produced in the case tried yesterday, relating to the heifer of Walter Chitty, with stealing which the prisoner was tried but acquitted. The "white steer" in the present case belonged to Mr. Coates, who had it in his possession towards the close of September last. In October, however, it got on "to the run" about Hamilton, included in what is known as the town belt. The prosecutor missed the animal, and ultimately found it in the possession of a Mr. Hinton, a settler. Hinton got it from Mr. Coop ; Coop had taken it with his own to the sale yards under the prisoner's direction. The defence was that
this "white steer" was one of three calves purchased from John Coleman, a butcher, but Coleman said that there "were some words" about purchasing "three cows and three calves," but the bargain was never completed. The witness Coleman swore positively that he never sold to the prisoner "a white steer with a black muzzle, and borns pointing down and up," such as described. The prosecutor in his evidence said the accuscd came to him, and said, " I hear you blame me for the loss of your three cows which had been stolen." The prosecutor said he blamed no one until he found it out. The prosecutor asked the prisoner about the steer. Ultimately he found the steer with the other cattle in his paddock.—Mr. Hesketh, in defence of the prisoner, said the whole question turned upon the sale from Coleman to Vowless. If that were admitted, the innocence of the prisoner was consistent with all that followed. If there was no sale, the case for the prosecution would be stronger. That there was a negotiation for sale and purchase between Coleman and Vowless was clear beyond all doubt. The only question was as to the result. Clearly, the prisoner understood the purchase complete by the language he used when he told Coleman so. His Honor, in summing up, said that when stolen property was found in possession of a person, the onus of proof was on that person to show that he had come innocently into such possession. The words used by the prisoner to Coleman in regard to the sale were, " I will take those cattle I spoke to you about. Go to my mother and she will pay you." Coleman said, "1 shall do nothing of the kind; I'll deliver the cattle if you fix a day. and you can pay me then." Coop interpreted the conversation. Prisoner said, "Where are the cattle I bought?" Coleman replied, " They are down in the four-acre paddock." But this interpretation witness Coleman denied. — His Honor, in summing up, said there was no direct evidence of any sale -produced for the delence. I he jury would say whether the conduct of the prisoner throughout these transactions was consistent with innocence. His Honor observed thai there were some of the jurors in this case that were on the jury in the previous case. He hoped these jurors would dismiss everything from their minds except the evidence they had just heard.—The jury, after a short deliberation, found the prisoner guilty.—Sentence deferred. False Pretences. — Thome* SVw.v, alias' Sn,ip*o», alia* iir'uj.-hx:!:, was arraigned upon an indictment charging him with utteiinga valueless cheque on the Bank of New Zealand (Limited) for C 2 to William Whitalfcr Warnock, which was cashed by the prosecutor, Warnoek, and when presented at the bank, in Hamilton, it was returned with the reply " No account." Mr. R. Browning defended the prisoner. The cheque purported to be drawn by one (ieorge Hat-greaves. Til is case was somewhat singular. The prosecutor is the licensee of the Captain Cook Hotel, Kyber Pass-road. The prisoner first appeared in Newmarket to order a suit of clothes from Mr. Mumford, a tailor, giving the name of Thomas Sims. Mr. Mumford asked for a deposit, upon which the accused asked for a cheque form. Mr. Mumford said he had not one, but offered to get one from his neighbour (Mr. Taite, a chemist). Taite gave Mumford a cheque form on the National Bank of New Zealand (Limited). When the form was filled in the word : " Rational" was struck out, making the
form to read "The Bank of New Zealand (Limited)." —The Crown Prosecutor said it was first considered whether the prisoner should not be indicted for forgery, but the cheque bore the name of no i:auk knosvn to exist such as " The Bank of New Zealand (Limited)." But it was obvious, if the prosecutor gave true evidence, that a fraud had been committed by false pretences. — — William Whitaker Warnock, said the prisoner came to his hotel (the Captain Cook) on Saturday, the 11th February, stating that he had missed the Waikato train, and would stay at the hotel until Monday. In the course of the evening, the prisoner asked him to cash a cheque for £"2. Witness gave him £1 19s, deducting Is for exchange, the cheque being iuade payable at Hamilton. Some time afterwards Mr. Mumford came to the hotel, and said the prisoner had given him the name of Tliomas Sims. Witness then suspected that a fraud had been co' l,m itted, the prisoner was given into custody. The prisoner returned h}' very great persuasioll_ Xait a chemist, of Newmarket, denosed to "ivin" Mumford the blank cheque.— Edward Ha" l ? 111 '}' Whitaker, a clerk in the Bank of Xew Zealand, deposed that he frequently paid bank drafts from England to the prisoner, who usually received £5 by each mail. The prisoner had £5 on the 17th of February, and since this transaction he received the ordinary £5 by the mail and a draft for £25. The prisoner gave his name as R. 0. Brigstock. The clerk iu the Bank of New Zealand at Hamilton dsposed that there was no "Bank of New Zealand, Limited," there.—Constable Jones deposed to the arrest of the prisoner, wjio said he would not have done it had lie not been half mad from drink. The prisoner was known to the police as "a remittance man who stuttered."— Mr. Browning contended that the prisoner should have been indicted for the forgery, which was a felony.—His Lionor said there had been an alteration of tlie old law in cases of this kind. It was now law that a man was not to be acquitted of the misdemeanour if it should appear that the oilenee was actually a felony.—Mr. Browning-in his address to the jury said that no motive for this act was proved. The prisoner bad just received money from Home, and lie had since received considerable sums of money from the same source. It was shown that tile prisoner was "on the spree" and had no idea of committing a felony : in fact, he was suffering from the eileets of drink, aud was unconscious of the nature of the act he was doing when he uttered the cheque. — His Honor having summed up. the jury retired to consider their verdict, aud after a short deliberation, found the prisoner guilty of "false pretences." —• Robert Cecil, a farmer, said the prisoner came to him as a "farm pupil." He was a simple sort oi person, sometimes foolish. Dr. Zinzan was
; consulted, because it was believed prisoner was not altogether in his right mind. Prisoner had to be sent to Wanganui in consequence of the heat of this climate. —His ■ Honor said that drinking "'as no excuse for crime. He would pass a light sentence as a warning to the prisoner. Sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. Business for Thursday—The Crown Prosecutor, in reply to His Houor, said he i would take the case of Charles Alexander Martin, receiving stolen goods, and possibly the case against Joseph Ryan, indecent 1 assault, on Thursday (this day.) f BANKRUPTCY. I Re Gforce Edwin A ldertox. —A meetI ing of creditors was held yesterday in this estate. The debtor was described as a news--1 paper proprietor (the Northern Advocate). 0 The liabilities were set down at £1386 19s -kl, 5 and the assets at £650. The assets consisted of a "printing press and plant," valued at 1 £250 ; the goocl-will of the Northern Advo- \ cate, £50; book debts, £300 : and furniture, £50. It was stated that there was a bill of ? sale over the printing plant, and that nothing from this source could accrue to the e estate. Mr. Thomas Macffarlane was appointed trustee.
POLICE COURT.— Wednesday. | [Before J. E. Maciionald, Esq. 11.M.] A Vagrant.—William Fisher pleaded guilty to having no visible lawful means of support, and to having been found in a house frequented by thieves and prostitutes. He ■was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment with hard labour. Stabbing tn a Restaur.ant. —Samuel H. Cox, on remand, was brought up on the charge of stabbing William Hill on the forehead. On the application of Mr. Tyler, who appeared for the prisoner, and represented that his client was suffering from severe illness, the case was further remanded until the 14th instant. Railway Regulation's. —John James Alien, for travelling in a first-class carriage when he had only taken out a second-class ticket, was fined 20s and costs. A Nuisance. —James Johnston, licensee of the Old House at Home Hotel, was fined 5s and costs for allowing offensive matter to flow on to Victoria-street. Mr. Cotter appeared for the city authorities in this case. By-law.-'.—Thomas Walters, driver of a hackney carriage, was charged with not producing the ticket of his carriage when called on by Inspector Goklie. Mr. Tyler, for the defendant, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Cotter prosecuted. Mr. Tyler raised a technical objection, that the by-law put in evidence was not sealed with the common seal of the Council, the seal being only on a blank page. The objection was sustained, and the case dismissed. A case against Win. Malyon for breach of the regulations in not having his scale of fares suspended in his haekuey carriage, in which Mr. Cotter prosecuted and Mr. Tyler appeared for the defence, was heard, and His Worship reserved his decision. Ckwklty to Animals.—Richard Reeves was charged with working a horse in harness when it was not in a fit condition to be worked. The defendant said as soon as lie ascertained the horse had a bad shoulder he engaged Mr. Halstead, veterinary surgeon to attend to liini. The case was adjourned for Mr. Halstead's evidence.
ONKHUNGA R.M. COURT. Wednesday, Ai-kilS. (liufore Messrs. .7. Gordon and T. Ball, J.l'.'s.l Liokn'sixi; Act. —David Chapman, of the Star Hotel, Otahuhu, was charged with scllmr' liquor on his licensed premises to one Hugh Lushington, lie being at the time not sober. Mr. S. Hcsketh appeared for the defendant. E. I'. Donnelly, a farmer at East Tainaki, deposed : I had my bed in the Star Hotel on Saturday evening. I saw Mr. Lushington riding in tho street, spoke to him, and he got oil' his horse, and went into the hotel. He was the worse for liquor. He hardly know what he was doing. He went into the bar, shouting for all the men in the bar, and drinking. I saw him drink soda and brandy. I was in a back room. I afterwards got him into a front room alone. He wanted me to drink. I told Chapman to bring him "soda straight, but X believe there was brandy in it from the colour. Tlu: brandy that I saw supplied to him previously in tho bar, was served by the barman. Ho got more drink, and I had to assist him on to his horse when he left. Ho rode part of the way home, and then turned back galloping, and fell oil his horse. I was following him, and overtook him lying on the ground. I did not see him fall. He was helpless. I assisted him a little way, when he collapsed. I left him, and rode back to the Star Hotel, and asked Chapman to send his barman to help, but he refused. I got a man to go with me. We found him lying
helpless, and carried him to bed Chapman's house. I then told Chapman this had been going on too long, meaning that Lushington hod often got drunk there, and that I should lay an information, which I did, for the safety of Lushingtou's life. Mr. Lushington is a gentleman of considerable means, and is spending his fortune freely. To Mr. Hesketh ; I was quite sober myself. I had just come from Auckland, and had my tea. I have no personal feeling against defendant or bis barman. My action is solely to secure and save Lushington's life, as on a former occasion he had fallen off his horse, and lay all night on the road. T. A. Brown deposed : I was at the Star Hotel when Mr. Lushington was there. I can't say he was sober, but he was not " tight." He walked steadily, and talked sensibly. I saw him supplied with drink, but what it was, gingerbeer or anything else, I do not know. We left the hotel together. He seemed quite able to take care of himself. H. Seullen deposed : I was at the Star Hotel, aud I saw Mr. Lushington there. He passed through the room, and appeared quite sober. I did not see him have any drink, uor did I see him leave. He always has a jovial manner. Hugh Lushington deposed : I reside at Green Mount. I left home about 5 o'clock and went to the Star Hotel. I had not previously drunk anything that day. I had beer at the Star. I do not think I had anything else, aud did ] not become the worse for liquor there. I did afterwards elsewhere, and do not remember going back to the Star aud having brandy and soda, or falling of! my horse. 1 found myself in Chapman's house the neXj. morning. T. Bailey, barman of the Star, | deposed : Mr. Lushington was therefor some time. He seemed quite sober. Ho had beer and brandy aud soda, but went away quite sober. Mr. Hesketh argued that from the evidence there was no case to meet, Donnelly's evidence not being supported, but contradicted by all the other witnesses for the prosecution. The Justices were divided in opinion on this point, and therefore called on Mr. Hesketh for his defence. D. Chapman deposed : Mr. Lushington was at my hotel on this day. He was there from about four till aboutsix o'clock. He was perfectly sober. He was away then for about au hour, and returned. He was then quite sober, and I supplied him with liquor. I saw him again about three hours after. He was then in bed, and fast asleep. I did not supply him with any drink, or see him during those three hours. He was away from my house. The Bench were still divided in opinion, aud therefore the case would be adjourned to give time for a legal opinion on the point, whether, if dismissed, it could be brought on again.—[Own Correspondent, April 5.]