LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7826, 21 December 1886, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT.—Monday. [Before H. Q, Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness. — David Mills, for being drunk and disorderly in Kyber Pass Road, was fined 40s and coats or seven days. Two men were fined 5s and costs. Disorderly Character. — Alexander Watson appeared on remand from December 11, on the following charges: (1) drunk and disorderly in Queen-street; (2) using obscene language ; (3) ■ breaking tumblers, valued at 4s 6d, the property of Benjamin Dawson ; (4) breach of the Police Offences Act by assaulting Constable Cotter while executing his duty; (5) assaulting Wynne-Williams by kicking and striking him; (6) wilfully damaging a shako and badge, valued at 16s 6d, the property of Constable Cotter. Acoused admitted being drunk, but professed ignorance of the other charges. Constable Cotter deposed that, when on the wharf, about eleven o'clock p.m. on Saturday, the 11th, the accused was very violent, and tried to break into a shop. He arrested him, and the accused resisted and knooked hi* shako off. It was much damaged, and the badge was lost. Constable Cooper and Mr. Williams came to his assistance. Acoused deliberately kicked Mr. Williams between the leqs, and the latter was so inuoh injured that he had to be removed in » cab by some friends. On the way to the station the prisoner used most filthy language, fie had to tie the accused's legs, but on his promising to walk quietly his legs were unloosed ; but he again became so violent that they had to throw him down again, and tie his legs once more. Constable Cooper gave evidenoe in regard to coming to the first witness's assistance. Henry Wynne Williams, of the Permanent Force at North Head, stated that on seeing Constable Cotter getting dangerously knocked about, he went to his assistance, and tried to persuade the accused to go quietly. Defendant then deliberately kicked him, in consequence of which he had to be taken to the doctor, and was not yet quite well. Benjamin Dawwon, seedsman, Queen-street, deposed that the aocused was in his shop on Saturday night, December 11. He used most disgusting language, and witness told him he must leave the shop, but not doing so, he threw him down on the floor. Accused then jumped up, and took his coat off, and then threw a pineapple at witness's head, and broke several glasses. After a hard struggle the accused was pat out of the shop, and the constable came to assist him. Witness saw Watson strike him in the faoa. His Worship said, as there were several charges against the accused, arising out of the same occurrence, he would be dealt with to the fall extent of the law- npon the first oharge.- Fined £10 and costs, and ordered to pay the damages, or suffer three months' hard labour. Larceny from a Boat.—Edward Wilson (a lad of 12 years) was charged with stealing a pair of oars, valued at 7s 6d, the property of J. H. Upton, on November 30. Remanded till Tuesday. The Licensing Case.—Henry Bennett (adjourned from Saturday) was charged with keeping his house open for the sale of liquor, on December 12. The case for the prosecution having been closed on Saturday, Mr. T. Cotter opened the defence. The evidence would go to prove that the man in question presented themselves to the porter and asked for beds, and on the porter consulting the defendant they were admitted, and then asked for drinks, whioh were supplied by the waitress and the defendant, but none was supplied to the man Knox, and how he Game to have liquor he could not explain. The bar was not lighted up for the purpose, except to serve the drinks in question, and the bar was lighted by the street lamp over the door. Harry Bennett deposed that the porter's name was Tremoulin, and that he came to him on Sunday, the 12th, and stated that Weekes and two other men wanted beds. He asked for three beds, and he told Weekes that they could have the beds. Weekes then asked for some refreshments. Witness oalled the girl (Miss Dair), and told her that the men wanted some drinks, and told her to serve them. She was not the barmaid, but was a waitress. He had not heard of the other man Knox, nor did he know how he got in, as he must have got in through the door being open. Did not authorise Miss Dair to serve him with liquor, nor did he supply him with it. Did not see the constables come in, but saw them in the bar, and saw Sergeant Kiely, who wu there. He was inquiring from Weekes what he was drinking. Weekes replied, " What has that to do with you ? What do you think I am drinking?" Sergeant Kiely did not say anything to him, uor did he speak to the porter then. The sergeant then insisted upon the mm leaving the bar, when they went and sat down in the passage. Sergeant Kiely told them to leave the house, and go on board their ships. Defendant oalled the porter, and he pointed out Weekes, Johnstone, and Nioholson as being the men who had engaged beds. The porter did not point out Knox, and he did not reply that he had never taken a bed. He heard the whole of the conversation between the sergeant and the porter. The men hesitated to go oat for a long time, and said, "You are not my master." They did go out, and one of them said, " We will go out for a blow." He sent out to get them baok, as if they did not come baok the beds would be let to somebody else. It was the manner in which the sergeant spoke to them that made them go out. There were thirty-five persons boarding with him that night, and eleven or twelve servants. He opened the bar himself, and be let the girl in to serve the three men. His only reason for opening the bar was to serve the three men. There was only a very small jet of gas lighted. Cross-examined: His version was the correot one, and the sergeant's was a wrong one. He was in the passage the whole time, and saw the man Knox come out of the bar, but did not see him enter. He did not know where the barmaid was that night, and he did not keep the girl to serve in the bar, but she was there to supply drinks to the diningroom. He did not take the money for the drinks, and told the night porter to take the money for the beds only. William Tremoulin, porter, remembered Sunday evening, December 12, and was at the door then. Recollected Sergeant Kiely and the constables coming in. Three other men had oome in just -before, and asked for a bed. He opened the door and sent them to Mr. Bennett. He did not see where they went to after then. The constables then came shortly after, and Mr; Bennett called him in, and asked him to point out the three men who asked a bed, and he did so. Did not point oat a man named Knox, and did not hear him say that he had never engaged » bed. Did not see Weekes

shake his head when be was pointed out as having engaged a bed. Saw Sergeant Kiely order the men out, and he (witness) was •ent after the men to ask them if they were going to keep the beds. In croc-examina-tion the witness stated that the sergeant did not order .'ill those who were not boarders out of the hotel. Fanny Dair, in the employ of the defendant for twelve months, deposed that she was waitress, and on the evening in question was called from the dining - room to serve three men in the bar. The bar was then lighted by a small gas get, which was usually used for lighting pipes. Bennett said the three men were going to stay that night. She supplied them, and the sergeant and the constable entered, but she did not know they were constables. After supplying the drinks she left the bar, and was not there when the police were there. She saw a man at the door, but did not supply him with liquor, nor did she see him supplied with liquor. She did not supply anybody else with drinks. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length, but her evidence was not shaken in any way. His Worship said he had very grave suspicions that Weekes ever intended to be a lodger, and waß quite certain that the other two men never intended being so. If men became boarders upon entering a house, the Act would soon become inoperative, Fined £5, and costs 21*. Withdrawn.—An information against Thomas Bowen and Henry Carter, for rescuing oattle from the One-tree Hill pound, was withdrawn, on the application of Mr. Theo. Cooper, who appeared for the defendants. Riding on a Footpath. —Joseph Byers was charged with a breach of the Public Works Act by riding on the footpath at Rocky Nook, on December 3. Mr. Theo. Cooper prosecuted, and Mr. G. N. Brassey appeared for the defendant. Mr. Cooper dwelt at some length upon the injury caused to footpaths by the driving of oattle over the footways. In boroughs there were by-laws for the purpose of regulating the hours for I traffic, but the suburban bodies had no suoh by-laws, and could only bring the case under the Publio Works Act. The defendant was a stockman in the employ of Hunter and Nolan. Fined 10s, and costs. The Rule or the Road.—Edward Denize was charged, on summons, with failing to keep the left side of the road with his spring oart in passing a bicycle on the Onehunga Road, on Deo. 12. Mr. J. Houghton appeared for the proseoution, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. Stanley Hunter deposed that he was riding a bicyole on the Onehunga Road on Dec. 12, and was accompanied by Messrs. Clark, Howard, and Hunter. When leaving Epsom, they met the defendant, who was driving a spring cart, and was on the wrong side of the road. The oart collided with the machine he rode, and it was knocked down and broken by the force of the collision. Defendant passed the machine rode by Clark, but when the cart reached Hunter he could not get out of the road. Be could not do so, and struck the machine, If Huntar had not got his leg over he would have been struck by the wheel. After the collision the defendant said he would not get out of the way of bicycles, and that they were wearing sanguinary red stockings. Defendant made no attempt to help after passing, and went on for a quarter of a mile. He then returned and made excuses that he was driving a young horse, and that he could not be blamed for the collision. Reginald Pincknay and Arthur Clark were examined for the prosecution. Mr. Cooper contended that, assuming that a bicycle was a vehiole, there was no breach of the Polioe Offences Act, as the defendant was only on a clay portion of the road, and the 'cyclists insisted upon having their right side of the road, and would continue on; therefore they should take the oonsequenoes. fie submitted that under the doubt that there was, whether a bicycle was a machine, that the case should be dismissed. He also contended that the practice of riding bicycles, five or six in number, along the road, was a perfect nuisance, and one which should be put down. His Worship said he could not dismiss the case without hearing the defendant, Edward Denize deposed that on account of a 'cyclist named Howard, who was on ahead of the other four, and who passed on the wrong side, his horse shied on to the clay road, and that caused him to drive on the wrong side. James Sherlock, Henry Brierley, and Daniel Monro, who were in the csrt along with the defendant, gave corroborative evidence. His Worship considered that the defendant bad ample time to get on the right side of. the road, but he would look up the authorities on the question as to whether a bicycle came under the section.