POLICE COURT.—FRIDAY,

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6811, 15 September 1883, Page 6

POLICE COURT.—FRIDAY,

[Before E. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.H.] Drdskexne-<s.—Two persons were pun* ishe 1 for this offence, and Catherine! Taylor for habitual drunkenness, was sentenced to six mouths' imprisonment. Damaging Property.—Frederick Bolton,. Henry Cossan, and Charles Serale were charged with damping a house, the property of William Bin, at Newmarket, by forcing op'.n the door and committing a nuisance. On the application of Mr. Keetley, the case was adjourned until Monday. Disobedient Seamen —Carl Petersen was charged with disobedience to lawful commands on board this Bhip Grasmer.e, He admitted the the offence. The captain did not wish to press for a punishment, but wished him to be cautioned, as he had been several times unruly since coming into port. He was willing to take him on board again. The pri-oner was cautioned and discharged. Hawkkr's License.—James Anderson was charged with triding aa a hawker without a license from the City. Council. He pleaded guilty, and was fined 10s and Co3ts.

Stray House.—Charles Maitland was charged with depasturing a horse in Hope-toun-street. He admitted the offence, and was fined 5s and costs.

Sabbath Observance.—John and William Jacart were charged under tho Imperial Act 29, of Charles 11., by carrying on business as photographera on tho Lord's Day. They admitted taking photographs, but not liable, under the Act. Constable Hutchinson, of Devouport, deposed to Seeing the defendants ou the public road, near the Masonic Hotel, Devonport. There were a number of people on the road, and several had their photos, taken. He admitted they were not causing any obstruction. William Finch, a gardenei\ who had his photo, taken for a shiiling, also, gave evidence. He did not think it any harm.. John Logan gave similar evidence. The defendants stated that they did not. come under thse Act. Photography was not in vogue when tho Act waß made. There were certain exemptions under it, and know*iog that others had been acquitted under the' same Act, they felt they were acting legally. His Worship reserved his decision.

Absconding Husband.—Albert J, Fisher was charged with deserting his wife without providing her with adequate means of support. Mr. Williamson appeared for the complainant. He said that sioce the Case had last been before the Court, a summons had been served at the last known place of abode of the defendant, and he now asked that the case should proceed. Mrs. Fisher deposed that h<r husband left on the 19th of June for San Francisco, leaving her destitute and iri delicate health. She had one child, a girl, not her own, an adopted child, who was living with her when she married Fisher. She did not think her husband ever intended to come back, for he took one of his barmaids with him, as his wife, under an assumed name. He left some property in Gpotiki, on the East Coast. Charles KitigsfOrd Jeffs was called, but Mr. Williamson raised an objection as to the witness's religious belief. The witness, however, not declining to bs sworn, the oath waß administered. He deposed that he had known Fisher for years, and before he left the colony, he left witness a power of attorney prepared by Mr; Brassey, and he had acted under it, and sold some land of Fisher's, receiving a deposit of £5 on the 7th of last month. The total amount of the purchase money was £25. He received the balance on the 20th. He was not aware that Fisher had any other property which witness could dell with. Fisher left him no instructions to see to Mrs. Fisher. He had no money to apply to her support. He had disposed of the money which he received as shown by a statement and receipts, which ha had handed in. There was no further evidence, and Mr. Williamson asked for an order to be made against Fisher, reserving the right to take further action. Hia Worship thought there should be Bome evidence as to the husband's means, but Mr. Williamson said he had no direct evidence. His Worship made an order for the payment of 20s a week

A Nuisance.—Thomas Slater, on remand, was charged with neglecting to clean a private yard, also with allowing impure water to flow on the carriage-way. Mr* Theo. Cooper appeared for the defence and pleaded not guilty. Inspector Goldie prosecuted, and at his request witneaaes were ordered out of Court. The defendant is lessee of the City Market. Inspector Goldie deposed that in consequence of instructions he received, he visited the yard in Slater's occupation on tbe 4th instant, and found it in a very filthy state, emitting an offensive smell. The yard was attached "to the Market. He pointed out its position oa a plan, and was cross-examined on it as to the channelling, etc., with a view to thowing that the nuisance was caused by the City Council drainage being defective and the overflow from the public closet. Thos. Hodges and Wm. Monro gave corroborative evidence. For tha defence, Mr. Shaw, road engineer, who bad examined the yard on the. 4th of September, deposed that the yard was clean, and described the overflow from the closet and urinal. It was kspt as clean as it had been by previous lessees, or when kept by the City Council. The concrete channel was put there to drain the water from the closet, which percolated into the yard. There was two feet of a fall from the street to the centre of the yard. There was a manure heap in the yard. Joseph Piggins, who removed the refuse from the yard on the morning of the 4th; Robert Chinnick, employed to clean the Market yard evening and morning; and a number of other witnesses, were examined, with a view to showing that the nuisance arose from the public closet. The case was dis j missed, with costs £8 10s, and the second case was withdrawn.

Damaoino a House.—Henry Trace and John Phillips were charged with damaging a houße to the extent of £5, the property of Robert McLeod, at Waiheke. Mr. Edward Cooper appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. James Russell for the defence. By arrangement, the case was adjourned till Monday. Lunatics Act.—The case against Joseph Carter, for contributing to the support of iiis son, at the Lunatic Asylum, had been adjourned for the evidence of Captaitt Hume, Inspector of Prisons, as to the means of the defendant. Captain Hume now deposed, that Carter received £155 a year, up to tho end of this month, but in consequence of hia mis-statements as to his income, his services were dispensed with. The case was then adjourned Hntil the 16th of October, no order being made. |

Anothkk Case of Damaging a House —-, J.-.mes Irwin (8 years), J.ilian Fernandez (12), George Cleale (10), William O'Hafa (9) Arthur McKeown (9), Edwin Wilson (IJ)' Cnarles Bow (10), Thomas Roberts (13)' Michael Conway (14), and George Dix (9) were charged with damaging a dvvellißgbouse to the value of £21, the property of John, Daniel, Edwin, and Joseph Tolo and othtrs. Mr. Cooper appeared for the defvndants, and at his request witnesses were ordered out of Court. Charles Nelson, wharf labourer, residing in Grahamstreet, deposed to having occupied a house belonging to Mr. Tole up to the 9th. of July. I He rented it from Miss Clara Tole. It adjoined what used to be the Ponsonby RopeWorks, and was a five-roomed house. Wit-: ness described the condition of the house when he loft it. It was a very old house, in the corner of a four-acre paddock, and was dilapidated when he took it. The boys from the public school used to come into the pad-

dock to play. He left the house, because it was too tar from his work, and be could not live, there comfortably in winter. It was du-. tant about 600 yards from the school. Wm. Watson, carpenter, Ponsonby deposed to having been asked by Mr. D. A. Tola to look at. a house near the Ponsonby public school. It was about 300 or 400 yards from the school. He saw it about the middles of August, add drew up a statement of damage . and wss amounting altogether to about £21. The house was not habitable, and. was in a very filthy state. John L. Tole, land surveyor, Waikato, deposed that when, faef la,st saw the house, seven or eight months ago, the house wis securely fenced in on the N. | W. angle of the paddock by a paling fence .five feet high, and the house was then I in a very fair state of repair : ; Mr. Kelson was a ten ant. Witness was one of the owners of the .property. He had seen _ the., house, the last week, and it was . almost a complete wreck., lie , estimated the damage at close on £30. The building, was insured for £300. Two rooms, and the kitchen were built about 20 years ago, but. the front rooms were built, 10 or 12 years ago. Thomas Henry Partington, a boy ten years cjf age, was questioned before being sworn as to the nature of an. oath. He was allowed to give his evidence. He resided at Lincoln-street, Ponsonby, and. attended the public school. He saw the boys now before, the Court about Mr. I'ole's house in, the paddock, about a month ago. He saw Tommy Roberts there about dinner time. He paw him and a great number of hoys in the hotise.butdid not see him do anything. Nearly all the school was there play ing with the wood and paper, and throwing stones. The windows and verandah were, broken. He did not see Tommy Roberts throw any stones, and did not see any one do anything to the well. He did not see any of the defendants break the windows, but one of them, Georgy Clcalo, told him he did break one of the windows.. The schoolboys were in the habit of playing in the paddock. Wm. Lecky, eleven years old, was also examined, but did not see any Of the. de'endant* do. any damage to the house. Walter Smith, nine years of age, was also called, hut he did not know who broke the windows and doors of the house, aud did not see the defendants at the house at. all. Half the school was io the .paddock. He saw no one break the windows pr doors, and did not know when they were broken. Mr. Cooper submitted that there was not a tittle of evidence against the defendants, and even if there was, the Court could not commit, for all the boys were under fourteen ; for the law presumes that they could not be 'juilty of a malicious act. He quoted froth Archbold to show that it could only bs held malicious upon the clearest evidence. The case was dismissed. '