LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9182, 11 October 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT.— Wednesday. [Before H. G. Soth Smith, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness.John Thackabury, for a third offence of drunkenness within six months, was fined 40s and costs, or in default seven days' imprisonment. Larceny.—Edward Mumford, a boy about 15, was brought up on a charge of stealing 14 sacks and 3 sugar bags from Wm. H. Wyman, of Epsom. He pleaded not guilty. The evidence was similar to that given in a previous case, in which two other boys were conv <" ed of a similar offence. The prosecutor, Jr. Wyman, and Miss Reid, George Heron, unci Constable Clarke, gave evidence. Mr. Res ton, Probation Officer, informed the Court, that the prisoner was on probation for i.wo years, and his father was under bonds u* £10 for his good behaviour. He had behaved very well up to the time of the present offence, but he could make no recommendation, and could only leave him in the hands of the Court. His Worship said he would not send the accused to gaol, but would order him to be privately whipped, to receive twelve strokes. Larceny. — Frank Williams and Isaac Nansetb had been convicted by two justices of stealing 5s and a bird, two charges, and were remanded for the report of the Probation Officer. Mr. O'Meagher now appeared for the accused. The lads were admitted to probation for six months. Failing to Comply with an Order.— Charles Chester was charged with failing to comply with an order of the Court to contribute 5s a-week towards the support of his wife, and being £6 17s in arrears, also with failing to pay £1 2s towards the support of his child. Mr. Earl appeared for the accused, and Mr. Brassey for the prosecution. The case by consent was adjourned till Saturday. An application that defendant be admitted to bail was opposed by Mr. Brassey, but bail was allowed to defendant in his own bond of £20 and two sureties of £10 each.

False Pretences. —Robert Montgomery Hamilton, a youth about 16 years of age, pleaded guilty to attempting to obtain from John Walker a sum of 10s, Toy means of a valueless order, purporting to bo signed by Ah Chee. The prisoner was remanded until Saturday, in order that the probation Officer might report. Unlawfully Wounding. — Michael Burke, an old man, was charged with unlawfully wounding Charles Taylor on the oth instant, by stabbing him on the face. He pleaded not guilty. Sergeant-Major Pratt asked for a remand until next day, as the doctor, who examined the wound, was not present, and he was not prepared to go on with the case. The remand was granted.

Unsound Mind.—Sarah Maloney, who had been remanded for medical treatment, did nob appear, but Sergeant-Major Pratt produced a certificate from Dr. Philson that she was improving, and he asked for a farther remand. Remanded for a week.

Seaman's Wages. — VVm. T. Briggs, owner of the steamer Ruby, was charged with refusing to pay Walter Parker the sum of £21) lbs, wages due to him for services as master of the steamer. He pleaded not guilty Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Baume for the defence. Mr. Cooper said he was not aware that in this Court before the owner had ever been sued by the master. It was usually the master who was sued, and execution was issued against the ship, but in this case, if they obtained judgment, they did not desire any personal remedy against Mr. Briggs, but this was the only way in which they could attack the ship under the Shipping and Seaman's Act. The plaintiff gave evidence in support of his claim. He was engaged at the rate of £12 a month. He claimed for four months' wages, and gave credit for £27. When he claimed the balance, Mr. Briggs disputed his liability. In cross - examination he said he was engaged by W. A. Briggs, a cousin of defendant, on the Ist of June, the date from which he claimed wages. W. A. Briggs was living with witness. Prior to the Ist of June ho had been discharged by Mr. W. T. Briggs, the present defendant, and witness understood that Mr. \V. A. Briggs was to be'the owner. It was only latterly that he looked to Mr. W. T. Briggs as registered owner for payment. When witness was discharged by the defendant the other men were paid off. (An agreement for sale of the boat was put in by Mr. Baume.) Witness admitted being told that an arrangement had been made for purchase. Re-examined : He did not seek his remedy against the defendant personally, only against the ship, of which he was the registered owner. The case for the defence was that defendant had nothing to do with it. The defendant had dismissed the plaintiff for faults, and Mr. W. A. Brings then entered into an arrangement to purchase the boat, the consideration being an assignment of certain property owned by Mr. W. A. Briggs in England. No accounts had ever since been made up to the present against the defendant in regard to the boat, and Mr. Baume contended that it was a conspiracy between Captain Parker and Mr. W. A. Briggs against the defendant, and Captain Parker had held himself out as part owner of the boat. Mr. Baume also raised the technical point that there had been no proof that the plaintiff was a certificated master, and master of this vessel. Mr. Cooper said it was not necessary, and he did not propose to reply to the point. At the request of Mr. Baume, His Worship reserved the point. The defendant deposed that plaintiff was in his employ as master of the Ruby up to May last, when ho discharged him, as he believed him not to be competent. A few days afterwards Mr. W. A. Briggs asked him to sell him the boat, and they arranged to meet at tho Royal Mail Hotel when they made arrangements, and the agreement in evidence was prepared. After that the defendant interfered no further with the boat. A few days ago Mr. W. A. Briggs told witness the captain's wages were paid up. Mr. Cooper pointed out that this was not evidence, as Parker was not present. By Mr. Cooper : W. A. Briggs had handed over the vessel to him, and he considered he should have her free, as W. A. Briggs was liable for all expenses. There was no change in the name of the registered owner, as witness preferred having his own name on the register until he got paid. Thomas Kean was also called, but his evidence was immaterial. Counsel addressed the Court on the case. His Worship said the question was not one of contract. It was what was the right of the master, and that right was given by the 72nd and 76th clauses of the Shipping and Seaman's Act. His remedy was against the registered owner for his wages. As to tho point raised by Mr. Baume, of the master's certificate not being proved, he did not think it was a good one. He ordered that the sum of £20 lbs be paid on or before Monday next. Costs were not allowed.

Larceny as a Bailee.—Joseph Lee was charged that in the 28th September, he being then the bailee of a two-horse dray, value I'll, the property of R. Sandall, did feloniously convert the same to his own use. Mr. 11. Campbell appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Theo. Cooper for the defence. Witnesses were ordered out of Court. The case for the prosecution was as follows: The dray, the subject of the action, came into the accused's possession in January last. It was Mr. Sandall's property, anil by the intervention of a Mr. •Gibbons, it was hired to the accused at a rental of 5s a week, and the dray, which was then in the possession of a Mr. Lowe, blacksmith, Symonds-street, was handed over to the accused. On the 16th of March a sum of £2 was paid on account of rent, and on the 12th of May a further sum of £1 was paid. No more money having been paid, prosecutor sent to claim the rent, or in default to get the dray back, but the accused only sent him back an insulting message. On the 28th September, prosecutor saw the dray in Buckland's saleyard, and endeavoured to take it, but was prevented by the accused, who told him that lie- intended to do him out of the dray, as he, Sandall, had done accused out of a horse on the previous week. The evidence of the prosecutor, Mr. Gibbons, and Mrs. Sandall was taken. Cross-examined : He never spoke to Lee. Gibbons did the leasing of the dray, and Gibbons was not authorised to sell the dray. He never gavo Gibbons authority to sell the dray at any period. A verbal account was rendered to Lee for the rent of the dray. Mrs. Sandall got £2 from Lee, and £1 in May. He allowed the rent to go into arrears for four months. Witness claimed ■ the dray from Lee at the saieyards. Air. Buckland had said to him if the dray was , his, lie would be answerable for the money. |

A man named Clarke had not come to him from Lee and told him he would pay £5 in a week, nor told Frank Wood he would have to sue Leo for the money for the dray. Neither had he told Clark that he had sold the dray to Lee, but that he had Gibbons' security for the money, nor sent a boy named Moylc to Lee for the balance of the purchase money. Gibbons was his agent, but not in the matter of the dray. Re-examined: He wished £12 for the dray when Gibbons wanted to buy the dray for Lee. Lee was not agreeable, and he was willing to take £11 cash. Ebenezer Pearson liibbons deposed that he was a timber merchant, residing at Swnnson. He know Lee, and had had transactions with Sandall and him. In the end of January or beginning of February negotiated the sale of the dray between the parties. Lee requested witness to ask Sandall what he would take for the dray. He did so, and informed Lee that Sandall would sell for £11 cash. Nothing came of the matter. A day or two after Lee asked him to see Sandall about what he would take for the hire of the dray. Made inquiries, and told Lee that Sandall wanted 5s a week in advance. Lee instructed him to get it. Gob an order from Sandall for the dray, which was in the possession of a blacksmith, and Lee took the dray away. Subsequently, Lee told him to apologise to Sandall for not paying him the money, as he would not get his money til), the end of the month. The charge o- .is a week was a fair one. There was no particular time for the hiring. Cross-examined : There was no sale of the dray to Lee. Did not tell Mrs. Clarke that the dray was sold to Lee, and that if Lee did not pay Sandall would fall back upon him. He had had several transactions with Sandall. Lee subsequently repaired the dray, putting in a new shaft in place of a defective one. Sandall had never told him that he would look bo him for the money. Elizabeth Sandall deposed that she was the wife of the prosecutor, Richard Sandall. Knew the accused, Joseph Lee, by sight. Lee called at their shop in Symonds-street, and paid her £2, saying it was rent for the dray. Had nob had any conversation since with Lee. The money was paid to her since Christmas. Alfred Thomas Moyle deposed that, he was in the employ of Mr. Sandall. He know the accused, Joseph Lee. Took a message from Mr. Sandall to Lee on or about the 29th August, requesting him to pay some money for the rent of the dray. He said he was expecting some money from the Road Board, and would let Mr. Sandall have some on the first of the month. A fortnight or three weeks he was sent again to Mr. Lee, but did not then seo him ; saw him on Friday week. Was told b<- Mr. Sandall to ask for a horse-collar, am. - quest Lee to send the dray back. Le<- _.ive him the collar, and used some bad language as regards Mr. Sandall. He sai'' 3 he (witness) went to Court and s\- . he (accused) had hired the dray he would tell a lie. Had not said anything about going to Court. Did not know that he would be a witness till Monday evening. Charles Lowe deposedhe wasablacksmith residing in Symonds-street. He had a dray belonging to prosecutor at commencement of the present year. Delivered it,on order from Mr. Sandall, to Mr. Gibbons (produced). Believed Mr. Gibbons took the dray away. Could not say whether Lee was with him or not. Mr. Cooper addressed the Bench for the accused, and contended that there was not a prima facie charge to answer. If His Worship thought so, he had an array of witnesses for the defence whose evidence was such that no jury would convict accused on such a charge. His Worship said the evidence as to conversion was so slight that he did not think any jury would convict. There was some slight evidence of hiring, but the accused had apparently gone upon what he deemed his legal rights. The case was dismissed, and the accused discharged.