LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 7905, 25 March 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.—Thursday [Before H. O. S»th Smith, Esq., 8.M.) , JODGMBNT fob PI,AINTIFFS.--Eliztb. Pyne v. R. Thorn, £1 11b, costs £1 Is 6d; G. H. Powley v. Q. McVay, £3 6s 4d, costs £1 2s 6d; E. M. Clayton v. Mandrill and Warbrick, judgment for £20 2e 5d as against Handrill, costs £5 6s; G, E. Rollerson v. T. Termin, £2 11s 9d, costs £1 Sβ 6d ; R. and W. Hellaby v. J. S. Sheriff, £10, costs £2; S. Jackson v. E. J. Bailey, £27 6s, execution to be stayed until after determination of application in chambers at the Supreme Court, amount of judgment and coats to be paid Into Court before 12 noon of 26th March, costs £5 Is; R. and R. Duder v. C. Rolleston, £14 6s 7d, costs £2 9s; Annie Roe v. vV. Worth, £7, coats £1 193 ; E. J. Burohell v. F. Rosser, £4 lie, costs £1 Is 6d ; J. C. Macmillan v, G. M. Hall, £12 12s, costs £2 6s ; City Council v. J. Staunton, £5 4b, costs 10s; A. O. Carter v. H. Coupland, £2 4s 10d, costs £1 4s 6d ; W. E. Payne v. J. Reynolds, £2 13s, costs 6s; A. Fennell v. G. Home, £11 17e 6d, costs £2 Is : Ordered to pay by 2s 6d a week, and to give up possession of house forthwith; Peel and Co. v. J. R. Rhodes, 19s, costs £1 Is 6d. J. Moses v. A. Walkeb.—Claim, £6 14s, for a suit of clothes supplied. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defendant. The case caused some amusement, as the main question at isaue was whether a pair of trousers supplied to the defendant by the plaintiff were or were not a good fit. Plaintiff was anxious that the defendant should attire himself in the artiolo of dress about which the dispute arose, and allow His Worship to decide as to* whether they were a good fit. The coat and waistcoast were tried on in Court and found to be too large, the other garment being left for inference. His Worship held that the suit produced did not fit, as it was too large. The evidence was to the effect that the suit was too small. Whether the suit produced was the same or another was doubtful, and he must therefore find for the defendant, as the suit did not fit. It was strange that the suit produced was too large, while the plaintiff* own evidence was to the effect that the suit was a tight fit. Judgment for the defendant, with costs £6 lls. Power v. Nelly.—Claim, £16 7e. Mr. Burton for the plaintiff, Mr. Theo. Cooper for defendant. The claim was for price of certain goods, and also for money paid by compulsion to get rid of a distraint for rent. His Worship nonsuited the plaintiff with coats. Jackson v. Bailey.—Claim, £27 6s. Mr. Theo. Cooper for plaintiff, Mr. Burton for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Execution to be stayed on condition that money be paid into Court by Saturday. POLICE Thobsday. (Before Messrs. Q. P. Pierce and F. L. Primo, J.P.s.) Skriocs Chabge.Emma Crowther and Alfred Greenway were charged with a breach of the Police Offences Act, 1884, section 24, sub-section 3, by wilfully doing a grossly indecent act within the view of persons passing in Harding-street on March 23. Mr. R. Browning appeared for Mr. Greenway, and pleaded guilty on his behalf. From what he could learn of the facts, both of the accused were intoxicated, and Greenway was enticed to the place by the woman Crowther. Counsel went on to refer to the powers of the Benoh to punish nnder the statute, and considered that the merits of the charge would be met if Greenway were bound over to be of good behaviour, as a fine could not be imposed. Greenway felt his position very keenly, and he (Mr. Browning) asked the Beech to take into consideration his previous good character. Sergeant Pratt applied to have the evidence taken as only the male accused admitted the charge. He believed it was as bad a case as had come under his notice. It occurred in view of a public street, and from the facts, it would be proved by evidence that it was a most disgusting scene. A lot of children were about at the time, they being subjected to the indecent affair. The evidence of Mrs. Elizabeth Mann, Mrs. Sarah Alcock, and Con* stable Bernard was taken, but it was totally unfit for publication. The offence occurred about four o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, and after remaining in the right* of-way off Hardinge - street for about half - an - hour, they walked away to College Hill before the police arrived. The woman Crowther cross-examined the witnesses at length, and protested her innocence. Before the case dosed, Mr. Browning again pleaded for the leniency of the Bench, and implored them to take into consideration Greenway's character, as it would be absolute ruin to him if he was sent to gaol. Knowing that the Bench had only power to punish with imprisonment, ho asked them to be lenient. The Bench said they were extremely sorry to see a man of the accused's position in such a place ; but, as it was evident that Greenway was able to walk away, and procure more liquor, they felt there was no option but to deal with the case as provided for. Each accused would be sentenced to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. Shop-lifting.—Benjamin Bennett, Hugh Carr, and James Pollock were charged with the larceny of five shirts, valued at 23s 9d, belonging to George Fcwles, Victoria-street. The accused admitted the * charge. The Bench sentenced Bennett and Pollock each to three months' hard labour, and Carr, who had not been before the Court previously, received a month's hard labour. Ownership of a Block and Taokxb.— Arthur Moat (a highly-respectable young man) was charged with stealing a block and tackle, the property of Fred. Lange, at the Waikato, on March 17. The defendant applied for a remand in order that his late employer might be summoned as a witness. Remanded for a week to March 31, and an application for bail granted, defendant in his own recognisances of £50, and a surety to a like amount. WARKWORTH R. M. COURT, Thursday anp Friday, March 17 and 18, 1887. (Before Messrs. J. B. Jordan, M. Angove, and N. Wilson, J,P.'») Alleged Larceny of Katjbi Gum.— Richard John KnagßS and Thomas Wilson Knaggs, both gumdiggers of Pakiri, were charged with breaking into a store at the Pakiri Beach, owned by Messrs. Cruickshank Bros., of Matakana, and . stealing therefrom earn to the value of £15, between the 27th February and 4th March, 1887. Constable Haddock conducted the case on behalf of the police. Alexander Cruickshank (of the firm of Cruiokshank Bros.), storekeeper, Matakana, deposed: I know the prisoners. I have a store on the Pakiri Beach, and keep a man named Charles Hatfield to attend to it. No one lives there, , but he goes every Friday and Saturday. The prisoners have a perfeot knowledge of I this, and on the 27th February last, besides other gum there were three sacks of selected gum of the value of £15. Hatfield picked this out of two and a-half tons of ordinary gum. I was not in the store on the 27th February, but saw the gum after it was pioked and bagged. I was in the Maori camp at Tsmarata on March 14, and was shown two bags of selected gum. I pioked out some pieces which the Maoris present recogni-ed as some of that sold by them to Hatfield at my store. They told me they had bought it from the prisoners. On March 6 I heard that the store had been broken into and some gum stolen, and went there on the 14th and found the three sacks of gum gone. I noticed that a shutter on the window was split as if it had been forced open with a piece of iron, and n, sack which was nailed over it was slit open, some panes had been broken, and glass was lying at the back of the store. Charles Hatfield, assistant to Cruiokshank Brothers, said: I attend to the beach store and buy gum on behalf of my employer*. Was in the store for that purpose on the 25th and 26th of February last, and there were then three sacks of selected gam, which would weigh about 4cwt, and were, worth 60s per cwt. I picked this, and two other sacks full which I had taken to Matakana, out of over two tons. I left the store on the 26th, about three o'clock, looked the door, and left the window properly secured. Was again at the store on March 4, &nd found two boards wrenched oft the window, some glass broken, and a bag which is nailed over it onit, 1 at once missed the three sacks selected gum. I bought 181bs of gum from one of the prisoners (Richard Knaggs), on the 4th March, and on the 11th March 1131ba from both, This was all selected gum, and I gave 42s per owt for it, but it was worth 60s per owt. I felt quite sure that it was some of that stolen from the store. I bought it because I thought it would lead to the detection of the thieves. Witness here identified some of the gum in court which he had bought from the prisoners, and which it was alleged had been previously sold to him by the

Maoris. Hanana (a native) gumdigger, Pakiri, said: I know the prisoners. The, have lived at Tamarata for the last thret, weeks. Their whare in about 20 chains from mine. Have not seen them digging for gum, and don't know their occupation. I have bought no gum from them, sold somejto Hatfield on 26 th February. Prisoners sold some to the half .caste Peacock, and I recognise the three pieces produced in Court as some of that which I sold tojlatfieid on the 26th February, and which the prisoners sold tn Peacock. Edward Peacock (half-caste), gum' digger, of Pakiri, said: I live close to thft prisoners, and hare knowa them for three weeks, bat do not know how they are employed. They sold me 2cwfe 2qrg 81bs of gum, and I went to their whare to get it. Kichard Knagge helped me to carry it away. It waa all lirst-class gum, bat not well scraped. I gave 40a to 43s per cwt for it, according to the quality of the scraping. It was a fair price for it, They asked me not: to mention that they bad sold me any, and g*T» me £2 not to say anything shout it. There was a friend of theirs (Duncan McEenzie) present when thia took place. I inspected that the gum had been stolen, and told them no. Did not: know it was wrong to take the £2, and waa not aware that a reward for the discovery of the thieves was offered. Constable John Haddock, stationed at Warkworth, deposed : From information received I went on the 14th instant to Pakiri, to investigate the breaking and entering of Messrs. Crnickshank: Brothers' store oa the Pakiri beach. I instituted inquiries, and in consequence went; in eearoh of the prisoners, accompanied by Mr. A. Cruickshank. 1 found them in the bash about two miles from the atore. I suspected them of having committed thia robbery, and arrested them and brought them to Warkworth. Richard Knaggs denied the charge. This was all the evidence for the prosecution. The defence was oan« ducted by the father of the prisoners, and he called Duncan McKenzie, gumdigger, Little Omaha, who said : I wae digging gum in partnership with the prisoners at Tamaratu last week. I joined them on the 7th of March. We sold lowt 2qrs 21bs to the natives on the 11th of March, at 43s per cwt. Cruickshank'a price was 42s per cwt. The gum was delivered at our camp, which is two miles from the Pakiri sto. e. The gumfield is native land, and we have to pay them a royalty of Iβ per owt, The Maori paid me £2, on account of the gum, on March 14, and he still owes me the balance—£l 5s 3d. He said he would pay when he came back from the Tapu bush. lam sure this gum was all got honestly. The prisoners had about half a cwt of gum in their possession on tha 7th March. I can swear to one piece of the gum now in Court alleged to have been stolen. Witness then identified one of the pieces he had seen in the possession of the prisoners, and which had been sold to Peacook. Wilson Enaggs told me he had found this piece in a tree; but I don't know of my own knowledge where he got it. I made no arrangement with Pea* cook to pay him £2, not to mention that we had sold him gum. I waa present when the sale took place. This concluded the evidence, the case having occupied ten hours. The Bench gave their decision in the following terms :—lt seems evident that a quantity of gum has been stolen from Messrs. Cruickshank's store; but there being not the slightest evidence to connect the theft with the prisoners, the case is dismissed, and the accused leave the Court without the slightest stain on thoir characters.— LOwn Correspondent, March 19.] KAWAKAWA R.M. COURT. Maeoh 10, 1887. [Before J. S. Clendon, Esq., K.M.] CaiMiSAL,—Police v. Robinson : The defendant was charged by Police-Conatable Coughlan with using bad and indecent language in the streets of Kawakawa. The charge being amended by the prosecution, was made finable in place of criminal, with the consent: of the Bench. Defendant was fined 40s and costs. One month's grace was given to pay the amount, or imprisonment in default. Civil Cases.—Swift v. Lundon: Hotel expenses, £7 14s. The Bench ruled, on the suggestion of defendant's counsel (Mr. Henderson) that the summons was informal, the affidavit not being sworn to. The case waa adjourned. William Rosa v. Bindon : Claim, £5, for balance of contract wages. After evidence on both sides had been given, the case waa deferred, to enable parties to come to some agreement. G» Patterson v. Komani: Claim, £6, due for uale of gum. Mr. Henderson for plaintiff. The case was adjourned, for other witnesses to be in at* tendance. H. Bindon v. H. Parker (rival coach proprietors and drivers): Charge using threatening language, Mr. Hen* dersoa appeared for defeadant. There was a considerable display of temper on both sides, but after the examination of several witnesses, the defendant was fined 5s and costs, £2 2s. Three cases of cattla trespass, adjourned from last Court day, were called on. There was no appearance of the plaintiffs, so they were nonsuited with costs. Mr. Steadman was counsel for de« fondants. Mackenzie v. Henderson : Claim, £515s 6d, espouses incurred from defendant's negligence. Mr. Steadman appeared for plaintiff. After hearing of the citae, and counsel's argument, the Bs:ioh deferred its decision for ten days, to be sent in writing* Henderson v, Mackenzie: Claim, £15 Bs, bill of costs. The defence was ths* it waa not served according to clauses 139 and 140 Resident Magistrates' Act, 1867. The Bench, after arguments on both sides, stated that the Act was clear enough, and it was useless taking up the time of the Court, as it had bo jurisdiction. The case must be nonsuited, plaintiff to pay costs, £2 Is. Owens v. Montague : Claim, £3, for two weeks as nurse tender at 30s a week. The defence was that plaintiff left the service before tha stipulated time. Judgment for plaintiff 30s, and costs. This closed the business of the Court.—[Own Correspondent,]