Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Criminal Sittings. Friday, October 5, 18S3. (Before Mr. Justice Gillies.) His Honok took his seat on the Beuch at ten o'clock. Malicious Injury to Property.—Edward ! Dewar Hic/iards surrendered to his bail,, and was arraigned upon an indictment charging 1 him that he, on the 15th of Arignst, at Newmarket, did maliciouß injury to property belonging to Benjamin Tanner,;by destroying a certain house and premises. -Mr. Hudson Williamson (with .him Mr. Theo. Cooper) conducted the prosecution op behalf of the Crown; Mr. E. Hesketh defended the prisoner. The facts of this case have been on several occasions the subject of judicial inquiry. Tbe prisoner was described as a slaughterman and butcher, carrying on business at Newmarket. The property (land, house, and shop) in question was occupied by the prisoner, and had previously belonged to him. But he had made it over to a woman with whom he lived for the benefit, as he alleged, of their children. Some quarrels appeared to have taken place between the woman and the prisoner, which led to their separation. The woman, however, resolved, through the trustee of the settlement, to sell the propelty, and it was put up to auction, and sold to the prosecutor, Benjamin Tanner, for £340. The prisoner lodged a caveat against the property being transferred to the purchaser. The purchaser sued the prisoner in the Supreme Court (Civil Sittingß) to obtain possession of the property, and to recover mesne profits. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, and the prisoner was ordered to give up possession.— John Mullally, . who described himself as a labourer and contractor, said that on the night before the alleged malicious injury he had a conversation with Richards. The prisoner asked him whether he would purchase the house, to which the witness replied "At a price." It was proposed at first that the witness should give £15 (to be paid by IOU) for the house. At prisoner's suggestion Mntlally proceeded to pull down the house. ' The witness was cross-examined to test the accuracy of his memory as to a sale from the prisoner to himself. He admitted, however, that he was " a little on" that night. The witness stated that he was to get the keys the next morning from the prisoner to enter the house and proceed with the work of demolition. Formal evidence was given of the sale to Tanner andthe application to transfer the caveat. The defence was in effect that the prisoner never gave Mullally authority to pull down this house; that he took no part in injuring or destroying the buildings. Mrs. Corbett, landlady of the Royal George Hotel, and a servant girl at the hotel deposed that there was no Buoh conversation between the prisoner and Mullally as" that which had been alleged to have taken place in their hearing. That they heard no authority given to Mullally to enter and pull down the house. The girl said that Mullally did come for the keys, in the morning, but the prisoner was asleep. She therefore got them out of his pocket. Mullally was told to leave the keys in the shop, when he had done what he wanted. —In cross-examination, Mrs. Corbett admitted that she had assisted Richards in various ways. She had lent him money to the extent of £150. She indignantly denied that there was any improper intimacy between her and the prisoner. She swore there was no authority whatever given to Mullally by Richards to pull down the house, as far as she had heard or knew of.— A witness named Whisker deposed that he slept in the house up to morning in question. —Counsel on either side having been heard, His Honor summed up the evidence.—The jury, at a quarter-past five, retired, to consider the verdict, and at ten minutes to six returned into Court with a verdict of "Guilty."—His Honor deferred sentence until Saturday morning. Saturday's Business.—The oases for trial fixed for Saturday are those of the tvro Subritzkys charged with larceny. The Court rose at six o'clock.

POLICE COURT.—Friday. [Before H. G. Sctli Smith, Esq., K.M.] Drunkenness.— For this offence three persons were fined. Assault.—Alfred Neill was charged with assaulting Sergeant Donnelly, and with being drunk. Fined 255, and costs, or thirtyeight hours' imprisonment. Neglecting to Suiwobt.— Joseph Franklyn Nelson was charged with neglecting to support his wife, Jane Eliza Nelson; and also with neglecting to provide for the support of his son, Joseph Charles Nelson. Mr. E. Cooper was for the defendant, and Mr. Jackson for the prosecutor. Evidence was taken to the effect that the couple were married in January, ISS3. After the complainant's confinement, she was turned out of doors, and for twelve weeks she had not received support from the defendant. The mother of the complainant deposed to seeiug her daughter turned out of the house, and stated that no support had been given to her daughter by the husband except for two months, at the rate of 12s per week. The wages of the defendant was £2 per week. The case was eventually adjourned for a week, to enable the parties to come to some arrangement.

Alleged Larceny.—Mary Martin, barmaid at the Scotia Hotel, was charged with stealing a watch and chain valued at £20, the property of George Cook. From the evidence it appeared that, the prosecutor with two others went into the • hotel named and thero had drinks, which were supplied by the barmaid named. A half sovereign was tendered in payment. Change to the extent of 6i was handed back. At this time the watch and chain were missed. The prosecutor could not say whether he had the watch and chain when he went into the hotel. He eventually got the watch at the Victoria Hotel the next day. He did not now think the girl had stolen the watch and chain, but felt sure she had stolen the half sovereign. After other evidence had been heard the case was dismissed. Mr. Cotter appeared for the defence.

■Adjourned,— The following charges were adjourned John Fobs, for striking Annie Cook, until Saturday; Christopher, for the larceny of certain tools, the property of Paul Louis and Louis Henriksen, until Monday.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18831006.2.36

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6829, 6 October 1883, Page 6

Word Count
1,034

LAW AND POLICE. New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6829, 6 October 1883, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE. New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6829, 6 October 1883, Page 6