LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 8980, 18 February 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.— Friday. [Before Mr. H. G. Sefch Smith, B.M.]

Judgments for Plaintiffs. — Judgment went by default in the following cases :— J. Booth v. Mrs. Fleming: Claim, £2 12s sd; costs, £1 Is sd. C. D. H. McKenney v. J. C. Bell: Claim, £28; costs, £4 18s. T. Barrett v. E. T. Clark : Claim, £3 lOd ; costs, £1 2s 6d. J. A. Beal v. J. McCormick: Claim, £2 5s 7d; costs, lis. J. Buchanan v. J. McNamara : Claim, £20 0s lOd ; costs, £4 18s. E. McGuire v. C. Renner: Claim, £2 2s ; costs, lis. Helensville Timber Co. v. J. C. Cairns : Claim, £3 17s 4d ; costs, £1 6s 6d. M. McDermott v. J. Waymouth: Claim, £2 5s 2d ; costs, lis. A. Buchanan v. J. J. Kelly : Claim, £5 15s; costs, 15s. J. Rae v. H. E. Edmond : Claim, £25 ; costs, £1 15s. J. and D. Oxley v. J. Forgie: Claim, £1 16s ; costs, £1 6s 6d. C. Jones v. J. Lynch: Claim, £3 10s; costs, £1 4s 6d. W. A. Allen v. C. Smith: Claim, £11 158 9d; costs, £2 14s. New Zealand Timber Co. v. C. Smith : Claim, £3 Is ; costs, £2. A. Heather v. J. McNamara: Claim, £27 9s 2d; costs £4 18s. E. Porter and Co. v. J. Dalzeall: Claim, £33 18s Sd ; costs £4 19s. G. Hulme v. C. Smith : Claim, £4 lis 6d ; costs £1 9s 6d. E. T. Dufaur v. R. Wilson : Claim, £24 8s ; costs £2 7s. Wingate, Burns and Co. v. J. J. Hickey : Claim, £12 14s; costs £1 6s. R. Franklin v. M. Martin : Claim, £20; costs £1 15s. G. Mcßride v. T. Stewart, jun. : Claim, £7 ss; costs £1 19s. W. Carson v. L. Wilson : Claim, £13 12s lOd ; costs £2 6s. Auckland Dairy Co. v. Camp : Claim, £1 Is 8d ; costs lis. Judgment Summonses.—B. Patterson v. C. A. Cooper, claim £3 lis; defendant ordered to pay 16s forthwith, or seven days' in default. H. Peck v. C. Hawes, claim £8 10s ; by consent ordered to pay amount by instalments of 20s a month. J. Close v. M. Pooley, claim £1 17s ; ordered to pay amount on or before February 24, or seven days' in default. C. W. Turnbull v. B. Bullen, claim £2 15s 5d ; by consent ordered to pay the amount by instalments of 2s 6d a week.

H. C. Hanciiard v. J. M. Speed.— Claim, £55. Mr. Thorno appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Whitaker for the defendant, and His Worship ordered a nonsuit, without costs.

I). Henderson v. R. Keenan.—Claim, £35 16s, for work done. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cooper for the defendant. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £1 19s, without costs. W. AND G. WINSTONE V. J. WATSON.— Claim, £1 19s, for firewood. Mr. Cooper appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Mr. Brassey for the defendant. The evidence of Messrs. G. Winstone (one of the plaintiffs), J. Watson (the defendant), andChas. Whisker, was heard, and the case was then adjourned to permit Mr. Cooper to call further evidence respecting the measurement of tho firewood in question.

POLICE COURT.—Friday. [Before Messrs. Wilding and Wade, J.P.'a.]

Drunkenness. —Henry Manning and William Pettit wero each fined as and costs for this offence, or in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Alleged Larceny. — Richard Alfred Mowall, on remand, was charged with stealing two shirts and one pockethandkerchief, valued altogether at 17s, the property of Patrick Gleeson. Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for accused, and pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Pratt, for the prosecution, called Sir. Gleeson, who stated that, having missed the articles, he called in Detective Herbert, who, from the circumstances of the losses, suspected and watched accused, who was employed at witness' hotel, and arrested him. The shirts (produced) were his. Kate Hennessy deposed that she received the clothes from the prisoner as his own, for the purpose of washing them, and gave them back to him. Detective Herbert stated that, having reason to suspect the accused of the theft he watched him on the 30th ult., and saw him receive a parcel from the last witness, which he put under a shelf in the hotel kitchen, and subsequently took away to a boardinghouse in Wyndham-street. George Russell, a young man who had been arrested on a charge of stealing a pair of boots and trousers from Mr. Gleeson, deposed that when at the police cells he had a conversation with accused, when Mowall called him a fool for not getting rid of the clothing which he (Mowall) hart given to witness, or clearing out. Witness replied that he was innocent of any theft, and would not clear out. Accused said if he had done so, he (Mowall) would have been able to get off. Mr. Napier, on behalf of accused, held that no larceny had been proved, and that Mowall could prove that Mr. Gleeson's shirts had got mixed up with his own in going to the wash, by accident. The accused then went into the box, and stated that he had been employed in Mr. Gleeson's hotel as "boots." He had been formerly at Oram's hotel. He sent five shirts to the wash, and believed them all to be his own. When he received the parcel back he placed it on a shelf in tho kitchen. He asked the girl if Mrs. Gleeson had examined the clothes. His reason for doing so was because he wanted to get his money, as, although ho could get as much drink as he liked, he could not get his wages. He took the bill for his washing to Mrs. Gleeson, and asked her to give him the money to pay it. He was not charged with stealing 10s by Mr. Gleeson. Mr. Gleeson had given him half-a-sovereign to pay a bill, and he had lost the money. This was all the evidence, and the Benca, though of opinion that there were strong suspicions against the accused, still held that the guilt was not clearly proved, and therefore dismissed the case.

Another Case.—The same accused was charged with stealing a pair of trousers, the value of £1, the property of Patrick Glceson. Mr. Napier appeared for the defence, and pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Pratt- conducted the prosecution and called Patrick Gleeson, licensee of the Albion Hotel, Hobson-street, who stated that he missed the pair of trousers produced, and could not hnd them until he saw a man named Russell wearing them. George Russell then gave evidence, and stated that he saw accused in Queen-street. He was

carrying a pair of trousers, which he gave to witness, saying they were better than those he (witness) was wearing. Witness took them and wore them. He had been arrested on a charge of stealing the garments. Prisoner had allowed him to sleep in his bedroom at Gleeson's Hotel two or three nights, though he had no permission to do so from the proprietor. Detective Herbert stated that he met the

accused on the 30th instant, with the I trousers produced upon him, find took him to Mr. Gleeson, who identified the garments. Mr. Napier addressed the Bench, contending that the only evidence against •the accused was the unsupported testimony of the man in whose possession the stolen property was found. Accused denied having given the trousers to Russell. The Bench dismissed the case.

A Third Charge.—Richard Alfred Mowall was charged with stealing a pair of boots, worth 10s, the property of Patrick Gleeson. Mr. Napier pleaded not guilty. Patrick Gleeson and George Russell gave evidence similar to that in the last case. Accused denied the charge, and the Bench dismissed the case.

A Fourth Charge.—The same accused was charged with stealing 10s, the property of Patrick Gleeson. Mr. Napier pleaded not guilty. Patrick Gleeson stated that he given accused 10s to get some medicine From Mr. J. P. King, telling him to be sure and pay for it. Accused brought the medicine, and said he had paid for it. Witness did not know anything about the matter till the bill came in, and he then charged the accused with keeping the money. He said he would pay it back, that he had lost it. Harry King gave evidence as to accused coming to the shop and getting the medicine. He did not pay for it. Detective Herbert stated that accused had admitted the keeping of the money, saying he had spent it. He subsequently said he had lost it. Mr. Napier contended that as the owner of the money had willingly parted with the possession of the thing stolen, and it had not been taken against his will, or without his knowledge, therefore the offence committed did not constitute larceny. Sergeant Pratt replied, and the Bench held that the offence as disclosed was a larceny. Accused was put in the box, and stated that he had lost the money. Mr. Napier made a formal protest against the Bencn dealing with the case, contending that they had no jurisdiction. The Bench decided to convict, and sentenced accused to one month's hard labour. Mr. Napier notified the Bench

that he -would move to have this sentence reversed on the grounds he had mentioned. Alleged Assault and Robbery.—John Peter Evans was charged with unlawfully assaulting William Barrett and stealing from his person the sum of £3 in money. On the application of Mr. Napier a remand was granted till Tuesday next, prisoner being allowed bail, in his own bond of £50 and two sureties of £25 each.

Alleged Theft.—George Russell was charged with stealing a pair of boots, worth 10s, and a pair of trousers, valued at 20s, the property of Patrick Gleeson. On the application of Sergeant Pratt, the charge was withdrawn.

Disorderly Behaviour.—Mary Carey, on remand from Thursday, was called to answer a charge of using obscene language and with behaving in a riotous manner by breaking a pane of glass, the property of William Porter. On the application of Sergeant Pratt, the case was held over till Monday, accused being admitted to bail in her own bond of £5.