LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6563, 29 November 1882, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT.—Tursdav.

[Before J. E. Macil.-.TiaM. K-s-j , K.M ] LvP-CESY. — Oeorge M i:rp'ri v and Robert Smith, two very young lac Is. were charged-vith stealing .1 pair u; boots. Both hoys pleaded guilty. Serjeant White asked for a remand as there wore other charged against the piisoners. Straying Cattle. — Thomna Nichobon W.ll charged with a breach of the Municipal Police Act in permitting o.utle to wander at the old Lakeroid. Fii ed 5s and costs. Alexander Alison ami Oliver Mays were charged with a similar ofience. In the former case the defendant was fined Is and costs. In the latter the charge was withdnwr. Dhivini; J! I'ND A ColiNi-K.—Charles Clarke was chirked with a bre-'ieh o! *-he city by-laws. X". 14, by driving a horse and sprint;-c~r!: at ether than a \valkin_r p-.ce I round the co "nor of Q leen-street and Snort- ; land-street. !-'iucd Is all 1 coits. | Silirrisi; Arr. — Rayiifml Davie?, an able seaman of the ship Hennione, was charged I with continued wilful disobedience 'oorders. j The master of the vessel paid he shipped the j prisoner for London, and Ljavo h:m his ad- j vance note on Friday. The prisoner went to ; the Thames, where he was arretted and i brought back. The ship Hermion; cleared j on Saturday. When the ; risoner wa« brought back he refused to work if he were to ehareed with the expenses of his arrest a d | being returned to the ship. This was refused He next said that he would not work. a;:d ! when ordered to turn to by the chief officer, ] the prisoner refused. The mate of the ves>el | Cave similar evidence. Both witnesses said j the prisoner was determined not to gn to sea. 1 Sentenced to eight weeks' imprisonment, with hard labour. Assault.—Charlesßaker waschargcd with an assault upon Charles 0. Montrose, jun.. The prisoner said he thought it his place to chastise the boy. His Worshipdid not think there was any intention to do otherwise than correct the boy. The prisoner, who had been nearly 124 hours in custody, was discliar:.ed. Hitmen or Act.—John Smith was charged with this offence, by seding beer without a licence in Buckland's sale-;, ards. Remuera. Mr. Theophilus Cooper appeared in support of the information : Mr. Kdwin Hesketh for the defendant. The learned counsel 011 eithc-r side had agreed to certain admissions, and formulated a case for the decision of the magistrate. It was admitted by the defendant that he did the act (sold the beer) as alleged, but said he had authority to do so, holding a license from the Reimicra Licensing Commissioners. On the part of the informant, it was admitted that the defendant did hold the licence from the Eemuera Commissioners, but it was coutended that the commissioners had no authority to give a licence to sell in such place. The licence purported to have been granted under the 36th section of the Licensing Ac 1 . The question at issue was whether this place was a fair within the meaning of the section. Mr. Cooper said th,.t if this place came within the section, then every market place, auction mart, and sale room would become «a grog shop. Mr. Hesketh contended the 'question was one of preat public interest. Fairs in England, according to one authority, were authorised by the King or by custom. There was no power to authorise a fair in the colony. The question could only be argued by analogy. He contended that this place came within the meaning of the section. His Worship said the question was one of considerable public importance. He would look into the authorities before giving judgment. Judgment reserved.

PAPAKURA R.M. COURT.—Monday.

[Before Thomas Jackson, Esq.. R.M.I ScproßT of a Wife.—Thomas Boyd was cliargd with failing to support his wife, Margaret Boyd. As the defendant now offered to provide home for his wife, the case was struck out. Gkokok Fisaskk and P. Jackson- v. W. Fla^aoan.—Claim to recover possession of lot 246, Pukekohe. Mr. James Russell was for the plaintiffs, and Mr. K. Iv. Tyler for the defendant. Mr. Tyler raised a preliminary objection to the summons—that defendant was summoned undi-r the 82 nd clause of the Resident Magistrates Act. 1 SOT, whereas plaintiffs now wished to proceed under the SSth clause of the said Act, and said though quite prepared to go on under clause S'J. he would not do so if the case were taken under clause BS. After argument, the Court reJ J, .1 lio-irino till t.ho 1 Hli Cohen v. Dkomgool. — Claim. £a ; damape sustained by obstructing the flow of water in a natural creek on the 20th November, whereby his flour mill was prevented working the whole of the said day. Both parties are flaxdressevs, and carry on their operations on adjoining properties by means ot water power supplied hy a creek which runs through defendant's land, thepre to the Waikato River through plaintiffs land. Defendant has a dam across the said creek. The plaintiff also has a dam. but 10 chains lower down the ?aid creek. The obstruction complained of was not the dam, but defendant closing and keeping closcd, while not working his mill on the "20th inst., both race and flood gates of his dam, thereby, as plaintiff alleges, depriving him of the use of the natural flow of the waters. Mr. Alexanderappeared for deiendant, and sought to establish that plaintiff had not been damaged by the so-called obstruction, and that the defendant's dam being full, the natural outflow of the water returned to the bed of the creek, and to that alone was plaintiff entitled. That the course of stoppage of plaintiff's mill was not defendant's obstruction but the scarcity of water in the creek itself. Five witnesses were examined, and judgment was reserved.