LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8073, 14 October 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.-Thursday. [Before H. O. Soth Smith, Esq.. R.M.I

Judgments for Plaintiffs.— J. Lorange v. F. Reynolds, claim £4 4a, costs £1 Is 6d ; W. Beehan v. A. Lynch, claim £8 3s 9d, costs £1 16s ; Woollen Co. v. L. Jackson, claim £73 13s 4d, cost* £2 ss; J. M. Brigbam v. J. Cusmo, claim £7 10s, costs £1 16s. J. B. Russell v. D. Gough, claim for possession of premises ; defendant ordered to give up possession on or before 15th October; costs £2 Is. W. Smith v. G. Morfitt, claim £210 a 6d, coats 19*; G. Hulme v. JR. M. Clarke, claim £9 0s lOd, costs £2 3s ; Woolleu Co. v. A. Paruell, claim £S0 Is 4d, costs £2 6a; F. W. Smith v. J. Clarke, claim £3 Is, costs 13s; Wingate, Burns, and Co. v. J. Greenwood, claim £5 5b 3d, costs £1 lis; Co-operative Co. v. P. Barclay, claim £1 ss, costs £1 Sa Gd; W. Monauhan v. A. Turner and others, claim £9 18s od ; W. Munro v. W. Smith, claim £1 3s 6d, costs £1 Is 6d ; B. Scott v. M. Rinkle, claim £4 8?, costs £1 Is 6d ; J. Patterson v. S. Beale, claim £4 10s, judgmont for £1 10j, costs £1 Is 61; J. Mathews v. J. Bryant, claim £1 13s 3d, costs lis; Public Trusteo v. W. J. Sly, claim £100, costs £5 3s; W. Stubbing v. H. Ellis, claim £3, costs £212 a 6d. S. H. Webb v. J. H. Siiirlby.— £6 15s. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Dufaur for the defendant. This was a claim for £6, rent due for use and occupation of a cottage in Hobsou-street, and 15s for breakage of window panes. After hearing the evidence of a number of wit- . nesses, His Worship nonsuited the plaintiff, j with costs 393. ' Db. Laishlkt v. Stewart and Another. On Wednesday afternoon an interpleader case was heard. The summons was issued in an action in which Dr. Laishley was plaintiff, and Messrs. Stewart and Gifford, of Epsom, dairy farmers, were the defendants. Mr. Lewis Moses was the claimant of the goods taken in execution by Dr. Laishley under a bill of sale made to him by the defendants on the 16th August, ISS7. Mr. Rigby appeared for the plaintiff, instructed by Mr. Baume, and Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for Dr. Laishley. The claimant's case was proved by production of the original bill of sale, proof of the advance of £75, and registration of the bill of sale. Mr. Cooper took several legal objections to the bill of sale and the copy filed. After hearing both Bides, his Worship took time to consider his judgment.

POLICE COURT.-Thursday. [Before MeßSrs. F. N. George and J. Wilding, J.P's.] Drunkenness.—Four persons were found guilty of being drunk, and were fined 5s and costs each. Bridget Weston and Michael Tierney were ordered to pay 10s and costs, or in default 4S hours; while David Irwin was mulcted in a penalty of 20s for a similar offence.

! Fighting.—John Place and Joseph Beattie i were charged with a breach of tho peace, by fighting in Queen-street on the 12th instant. Constable Donovan proved the obarge. Each party blamed the other as aggressor; but the Bench considered both equally to blame, and fined them 5s and costs each, stating that it was a pity that two respectable men should so far forget themselves. Cruelty to a Horse.—Ming Quong was charged with cruelly ill-treating a horse, by working it while it was suffering from a sore shoulder. Mr. E. T. Dufaur appeared for the 3ociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Mr. Cotter pleaded guilty for the defendant, and a fine of Is and costs was imposed. Breaches of Bi-LAWd.—Patrick Lynch was charged with allowing the chimney of the Greyhound Hotel to take fire, and was fined 5s and costs. George Reeves was ordered to pay Is and costs for wheeling a milk truck on the footpath in Union-street. James Molley, for allowing a horse to wander in Lorno-street, was fined a similar amount. Robert Gray, for erecting a screen upon the verandah of his premises in Queenstreet, was mulcted in Is and costs.

Youthful Larrikins.Charles McGeehan, George Elley, John Smith, Ernest Needham, Herbert Needham, James Simpson, and Thomas Rowo, whose ages ranged from 15 to 12 years, were charged with a breach of the Justices of the Peace Act by collecting on the footpath in Parnell, and jostling and annoying women and children. Sergeant Pratt stated that for some time past complaints had repeatedly been made concerning the conduct of the defendants, who made it a practice to collect nightly under the verandahs, and insult passers-by and tradesmen. All the accused denied the offence. Constable Hobson gave evidence as to the conduct of a large gang of young larrikins, of whom the defendants were members. On Wednesday last they were swearing, and booting, and yelling, and running up and down the footpath, compelling passengers to quit the path. Mr. Stillwell stated that the foul language, and horseplay indulged in by the defendants and their companions was a constant r.nnoyanoe. He knew all the boys charged to be frequently with the gang mentioned. James Gilbert also gave similar evidence, but could not identify any of the boys. Several of the parents of the boys expressed their regret at the behaviour of the defendants, and stated that they were quito unaware of any such conduct. The Bench considered that the growing larriklnism must ■ be stopped, and ordered each of the defend- : ants to find two sureties of £23 to keep the ! peaca for 12 months, j

Assault.—James French was charged with assaulting Daniel O'Connor by throwing stones at him, and ho was required to Snd sureties to keep the peace. The accused pleaded guilty, and was bound over to keep the peace for six months, two sureties of £25 being required. Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the prosecution, and asked for costs. Accused declined to pay these, saying he would sooner go to prison.

ONEHUNGA R.M. COURT. [Before Captain Jackson, R.M., and Mr. A. J. Dicky, J. P.] THE ONEHUNGA RIFLE RANGE (UEGINA) V, . TAP?. This was a criminal information laid by Charles Weber against William Tapp, a private in the Onehunga Rifles, that he did on the 2nd day of September last, at Onehunga, without reasonable cause in a public place, to wit Alfred-street, Onehunga, discharge firearms, to wit a gun, so as to endanger the passers-by in the said street. Tho prosooution was conducted by the police. Sir William Wasteneys appeared for the defendant. From the opening statement of Sergeant Green, it appeared that the volun-

teera were in the habit of using as part of their rifle range a portion of thin road, and

that several stands upon which the men lay to fire were erected at intervals alone the roadside.

. Charles Weber deposed that ho was a Ufl u r * and had hia *» n d in » field to wbioh communication was obtained by the street in question, and that all his workmen had to pass by that road to ma tannery. On the day in question he was walking down the street with his son, a ohild of 3£ years of age, and passed defendant, who was lying on one of the stands shooting at the target. Told him it was a very dangerous game to fire past the front of his gate. Mr. Tapp said he had a man watching every shot he fired. Went j in at hie gate, when his little boy ran back into the road to see the train. He ran back i and caught hold of him, when a bullet passed close to his head within a foot of the child. The child was fivo feet on the road. Witness was about eight yards from Mr. . Tapp. Pulled the boy in at the gate. Saw defendant load again. On cross-examination by Sir W. Waßteneys, witness admitted that he did not live in the street. His partner did, but his partner would have nothing to do with the matter. Held on to the gate with one hand whilst he palled the boy in with the other, yet was sure that the boy was five feet on the road. Had formerly been in the habit of crossing Mr. Tapp's field, but did not institute this prosecution because Mr. Tapp objeoted to his crossing his field, Had no personal enmity against the defendant. Swore he saw the gun reloaded, but could not tell how it was done. Could not say where defendant put the charge. Great amusement was caused in Court by the frantic way in which this witness, who is a foreigner, gesticulated. Daring the cross-examination Mr. Weber left the box, and ruahed towards the examining counsel, who requested him to return to his place, as he was extremely nervous, and did not like the close proximity of the witness, Edwin Churohas said he was at the time in complainant's service. Was 20 yards inside the enclosure. Saw defendant fire. Heard the conversation as previously detailed. Heard the little boy say he wanted to look at the train, and saw him run out. In cross-examination witness admitted that there was a stone wall between defendant and him. The wall was five or six feet high, and on the top of a mound. He did not know whether the wall was higher than his head or not. He saw defendant fire, because he was close to the wall, and looked over at him. Did not know the child he heard speak was dumb. Sergeant Greene gave evidence as to the constant practice of firing there, and he spoke of the danger to passers-by. On crossexamination the witness remembered that a similar prosecution was heard at the Court before, which was dismissed, and that he had told a gentleman that he was going to have another shy at the matter. He was not aware that the roiid had been maintained by the volunteers, as a way to the butts, nor that the stand for shooting had been erected by the Borough Council, who were trustees for the rifle range. For the defence, the defendant Tapp swore that Mr. Weber, on passing him said '* He'd stop it." That the child was inside the gate when ho fired ; that the distance from tho stand to the gate was about 30 yards, and from the wall about 7 feet; that the bullet would pass far over the child's head, even had it been standing as described, owing to the trajectory, and far to the right of the target, especially as he was allowing for windage. One of complainant's children was dumb, and he felt certain it was this one. That he had a man on the look out, and that he did not fire until he got a signal of safety. His evidence was corroborated in every particular by the look-out man, who also swore he heard the bullet hit the target. Mr. J. D. Jaokaon proved that the stands had been erected by the Provincial Council some 16 or 18 years ago, and that the volunteers had had the uninterrupted use of it sinoe, as long as there was a corps to shoot. Major Lundon corroborated the evidence of the last witness, and proved that the capitation of the two corps, amounting to some £450, depended on the use of this range. Sergeant-Major Campbell deposod to being instructed to examine the range after the last trial, and that he considered it perfectly safe, up to a certain range, and that permission had been granted by the officer commanding the district to the corps to fire up to that range. It was improper for men to fire unaccompanied by an officer or noncommissioned officer. A circular had been recently sent out to the officers commanding companies warning them not to allow indiscriminate praotice, but he did not know whether one had been sent to Captain Wasteneya. (That officer put in one of these circulars, which had been handed to him the day before by the musketry instructor, and whioh was the first intimation of it he had received.) In his address, the learned counsel pointed out that, apart from the circular in question, he was well aware that the Volunteer Regulations prohibited indiscriminate firing, but argued that the clause in the Act was not as copied into the circular, but read " should" instead of "shall" be so regulated as to ensure the presence of an officer or noncommissioned officer, and was therefore recommendatory and not mandatory. As the practice in question had been allowed by the former captaina, and had never been forbidden by tho present officer, tho men were not to blame, and if the use of tho range were illegal, it was Colonel Lyon or himself who ought to be prosecuted, and not the defendant. That the volun. teera had a prescriptive right to the road as a rifle range, and that this had beon practically authorised by the Provincial Council and the Borough Council. Even apart from this the case should be dismissed on its merits, as little or no value could be attached to the evidence of the two principal witnesses for the prosecution, who were neither of them independent, whereas all his witnesses were practically so. In conclusion, the learned counsel pointed out that, on the evidence, and on His Worship's decision, hung the earning .the capitation by two corps; and more than that, their ability to comply with the law which directed that they should make themselves efficient by shooting through their third-class before the end of the vear. His Worship took time to consider his decision.

Larceny.— remainder of the day was occupied in the trial'of Sydney Wade, Jan., for the larceny,of oats. Sir Wm. Wasteneys appeared' for the accused. The defendant, who had been previously convicted, was fined 10s and costs. The Civil oase of Wade v. White* Sir W. Wastenoys for plaintiff, was adjourned until Saturday.