LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8355, 8 September 1890, Page 3

LA W AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.— Sittings. Saturday. . [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] Burglary. — Michael Kirby, alias Lynch, was charged that on the 4th of August, he behig then in the house of Henry Miller (the Pukekohe Hotel) feloniously stole a quantity of clothing and other articles, the property of Henry Miller, and then broke out of the house. The accused pleaded not guilty. The case for the prosecution was that the accused had slept in the hotel on the night of the third in a room opposite that occupied by Mr. Miller, the licensee of the hotel, and that some time during the night he entered Mr. Miller's room and took the articles mentioned in the indictment, and then got out of the hotel. The clothes were afterwards found in his possession. Mr. Miller identified the prisoner and the clothes. Edward Hunter, who slept in the hotel on the night of the 3rd, deposed that when he awoke and got up on the morning of. the 4th, he found that his clothes, which he had left on a chair when he went to bed, had been thrown on the floor, and he missed his knife. It was something like that produced, but he could not swear positively that it was the same, but it had a blade broken in a similar manner to that in Court. A. G. Pulleng, who had locked up the hotel on Sunday night, deposed that all the windows were closed, although some were not fastened, when he went to bed. He did not see the accused about the place, but it was possible he might have been in the hotel. Witness got up at ten minutes past six in the morning, and had been awake for an hour previously, but he heard no person about. Witness first went into the diningroom, and noticed that the dining-room table had been disturbed during the night, as a lot of bread, scones, jam, etc., which had been laid out ready for the morning, had been removed and strewed about. He noticed that the door leading to the parlor from the dining-room was open, although he shut it before he went bo bed, and on going into the parlor he saw that somebody had been to the window, as a lot of flowerpots had been removed, three of the centre ones having been lifted on to the floor. The window was closed down, but there was a footmark on the window sill outside, and fresh dirt was on it. There was also a slight impression 011 the ground, but it had rained heavily during the night, and the marks were indistinct. Witness identified the clothing and other articles, and said he last saw them in Mr. Miller's room on "Saturday morning, the 2nd August. Detective Herbert, who arrested the prisoner near Kuckland, on another charge, deposed to finding the knife produced in one of his pockets, and all the articles of clothing produced made up in a swag in a bag. Constable McGovern, who was with him, identified the coat and trousers as being Miller's, and accused said, " Yes, they are Miller's." Constable McGovern gave corroborative evidence. The prisoner did not crossexamine any of the witnesses. His Honor pointed out to the Crown prosecutor that there was no evidence of burglary, or even of breaking out, for the articles may have been taken before nine o'clock on Sunday evening before the house was closed. The accused did not give evidence, or call any witnesses, bub said he had bought the clothes produced from a man who told him he' was a packer, for 15s. His Honor summed up the case, and advised the jury that the only charge they had to consider was the stealing of the clothes. The jury without retiring, returned a verdict of guilty of larceny.

Another Charge.—The same prisoner was then charged that, on the 27th of July, at about four o'clock in the morning, he feloniously and burglariously broke into the dwellinghouse of Henry Phillips, Swan-son-street, Auckland, and stole therefrom a silver watch and 3s 6d in money, the property of Robert Simpson. There was a second count,' charging the accused with receiving the property, knowing it to be stolen. The case for the prosecution was opened by .Mr. Williamson, who said that on Saturday, July 26, Mr. Simpson was staying at Mr. Phillips's boardinghouse in Swan-son-street. He retired to bed at the usual hour, hanging up his vest on a peg. In this vest was a watch and 3s 6d in silver, and when he woke in the morning ho found the vest on the floor, and the money and watch gone. Mr. Phillips, before retiring to bed, had closed up the house, leaving the back door unlocked, as one of the lodgers, a Mr. Weatherall, had not returned. Ib was possible that the prisoner may have got into the house in the interval between the closing of the house by Mr. Phillips and the return of Mr. Weatherall, for in the morning all the doors and windows were closed as usual. Robert Simpson, shipwright, who deposed that on the 2tjbh of July he was at Phillips' boarding-house, identified tho Waltham watch (produced) by the number. Ib was in his vest pocket when he went bo bed, and he missed it and 3s lid in money when he got up in the morning. Henry Phillips deposed to closing the house on the night of the 20th. He recognised the prisoner as having stayed at his house for one day and night about two years ago. John Weabherall, cook at the Waverley Hotel, who lodged at Phillips' boarding-house, deposed , that he got to the boarding-house at twenty minutes to 12, on the night of the 26th, and gob in by the back door. That was the way he usually went in, and ho locked the "door after him. Between four and five the next morning he heard a man walking about in his stockinged feet, and he afterwards heard him put on his boots and go down stairs. When witness gob down in the morning, after 6 o'clock, he found the back door unlocked and open. Louisa Wood, housemaid at Phillips' boarding house, deposed to having examined the windows on Sunday morning, the 27th instant, and they were all fastened. She found the mark of a man's boob on tho counterpane of a bed in one of the rooms which had not been occupied. There were eight boarders in the house, and they were all at breakfast except Weabherall, who did not take his food in the house. In answer to His Honor, the witness said the windows were only shut down, and there wee no fasteners to them. Detective Herbert also gave evidence. He found the watch identified by Simpson in prisoner's possession when ho arrested him near Buckland. The watch had been reported to him as missing, and witness had the number in his possession before he arrested the prisoner, and'so he at once identified it as blio missing watch. Prisoner did not crossexamine witnesses, or give evidence himself, or call any witnesses. He said he bought the watch from a man at Onehunga, who told him he was a gumdigger, for 15s. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of guilty. The Crown Prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi in tho case in which accused was charged with stealing a cashbox from the Pukekohe Hotel. His Honor, addressing the prisoner said:— Prisoner, you appear to be one of those habitual criminals who are a great evil to society—a strong, sble-bodied man who should earn his own living instead of living upon the honest and industrious. I find that in 1882 you were convicted of larceny, and got a short sentence of three months, and in 1884 you were convicted of attempted arson, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. You could nob have been long released when you resumed your criminal career, for I find that in 1888 you were convicted of receiving stolen property, and sentenced bo two years' imprisonment. You have pleaded guilty to a charge of larceny, and you have been convicted on the clearest evidence of burglary, of breaking into the Post Oflice at Pukekohe, and of tho robbery of those clothes from the Pukekohe Hotel, and that, I have no doubt, was a burglary also, although there was not sufficient evidence to prove it. On the charge of burglary you are sentenced bo S years' penal servitude, and on the other charges you are sentenced to 3 years' penal servitude for each offence, the four sentences to bo concurrent.

Breaking and Entering.John Howe was charged with breaking into the store of Elizabeth Ann Aubin, at Alexandra, and stealing therefrom a watch, a quantity of flannel, flannelettes, Crimean shirts; and a coat, on the sth of August. He pleaded not guilty. The case for the Crown was this : The prosecutrix kept a store in Alexandra, and prisoner resided iu the neighbourhood. On the night of the sth of August a quantity of articles, as alleged in the indictment, were stolen from the, shelves of the shop. The watch which prisoner was charged with stealing had nob been found. On the morning of the 6th Mrs. Aubin, on coming to the shop, saw that an entrance had been effected

through the window, which had been broken, and she missed the articles. On the 14th the goods were found in the possession of the prisoner by Constable Jones. Prisoner said he had bought them from a Mr. Hill, but on being confronted with Mr. Hill he denied having sold them to him. He then said he had bought them at Saddler's store, bub this Mr. Saddler denied. Mrs. A. E. Aubin, E. H. Aubin, J. D. Hill, C. Searancke, and Constable W. Jones gave evidence in support of the case. Prisoner called no witnesses, but addressed the jury, who, after a short deliberation, brought in a verdict of guilty. He was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour. The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock on Monday morning. POLICE COURT.Saturday. [Before Dr. Giles. 11. M.] Drunkenness. — Four first offenders, all men, were each fined 5s and costs, or in default twenty-four hours' hard labour. Joseph Reilly was fined 20s and costs, or forty-eight hours, for being drunk in Queenstreet. There was a long list of previous convictions against him.

WAIUKU R.M. COURT. Wednesday, August 27. [Before Mr. Thomas Jackson, R.M., and Messrs W. J. Harris and J. Hull, J.P.'s.] Obscene Language.A. Rickey was charged by Constable Parker with using obscene language in the public street, Waiuku, on the evening of Saturday, August 2nd. Mr. Haultain appeared for the defendant. After hearing the evidence of J. Robertson, T. J. Sedgwick, G. Trott, and Constable H. Parker for the prosecution, and Jos. Molloy, G. Beswick, J. McFadyen, and the defendant for the defence, the defendant was fined £1, and costs, £1 Bs. Trespass.—R. Neal was charged by Constable Parker with trepass. The case was struck out, as the prosecuting witnesses did not appear. Unregistered Dogs.— v. Turner. The defendant was charged with keeping an unregistered dog in his possession at Awitu. He pleaded guilty. The defendant was ignorant of the law, as he was brought up as a Maori. Two cases. Fined Is, and costs, £1 8s Bd, in each case. Cornell was charged with keeping an unregistered dog. Mr. Turner was sworn as interpreter. Plea not guilty. The plaintiff, Tindall, registrar of dogs for the district of Awitu, deposed that on the 17th May he went to the Awitu native settlement for the purpose of seeing the natives with reference to registered dogs. He saw a black dog lying on the doorstep of defendant's house. He saw the defendant, and told him he had an unregistered dog. Witness advised defendant to take a collar, producing the Act, and explaining it to him. i'he defendant sai'» the Act did not apply to Maoris. He did not deny having the dog in his possession, but said the dog did not belong to him. The defendant deposed : I live at Awitu. Am a half-caste. I don't think I am summoned in the right way, as I have not a do". The dog in question belongs to Hunter W illiain, who is a grown-up native, He stays at my house occasionally. When I had a dog I paid for him. John Turner, residing at Awitu, knew the defendant, and the dog in question. The dog belonged to witness, and he gave it to Hunter about twelve months ago. \ The dog usually stayed with defendant, but sometimes with Hunter, and follows witness sometimes. Fined Is, costs, £2 3s Bd. Constable v. Tivanon.Claim, £10, for 1 dogs worrying sheep. Mr. Haultain for defendant. The plaintiff, a farmer, residing at Waiuku, deposed that he knew the defendant and the dogs. On the 25th June Mr. Tindall called and told him there were two dogs worrying his sheep. He sent one of his men on horseback to see what was the matter. There were about 450 ewes near lambing in the paddock. He did not see the dogs on that day. He knew the dogs ; they belonged to defendant. He had seen them on his property previously. Mark Deed, in the employ of the plaintiff, remembered the 25th of June. The plaintiff told him to go as fast as he could to the paddock called Europe's Glory. He saw about thirty sheep rushing out of some tea-tree. He watched there, and saw a greyhound dog in pursuit He then went towards the dog, got off, tied his horse up, and walked towards the teatree, and met the dog in the track. The dog then turned, and went back. He got his horse, and galloped after the dog, when the second dog came, which was slightly lame. He did not catch either of the dogs, as they went into some high tea-tree, and from there through a four-railed fence into the road.. He had seen the dogs at defendant's that were chasing the sheep. The next day they were dipping, and found some six or seven bitten about the _ head. J. Tindall, residing at Awitu, remembered the 25th June. He came from Awitu to Waiuku on that day, and coming along the road he heard dogs birking among a flock of sheep. He saw two little flocks of sheep being rounded up by two dogs, and came to the conclusion that the dogs were working on their own account. They drove some of the sheep into a gully worrying. He saw two or three sheep come out of the gully.,, and they appeared dirty and exhausted. He should think the sheep as a breeding stock were injured. He rode as fast as he could to tell the plaintiff what he had seen. One was a strong reddishcoloured dog ; the other was a greyhound sort of a dog of a light mouse colour. John McGowan, in the employ- of the plaintiff, deposed that he had charge of the sheep. He found 26 dead lambs, and 3 ewes. He did not know the cause, but imagined that it was through the sheep being worried by dogs. For the defence, Bridget Tivanon, wife of defendant deposed that she remembered the 25th June. A letter from plaintiff stated that their dogs had been worrying his sheep. She said there was some mistake, as the dogs were not off the chain that day; in fact, they are never off the chain. The messenger said lie could not swear the dogs were ours. W. Tivanon, son of defendant, remembered the 25tli June. He was at home with a bad cold, walking about. He knew their dogs. One was a cattle dog, and the other a greyhound. The dogs were not off the chain the whole of that day. He never knew those dogs to roam by themselves; in fact, they had no chance, because they were always on the chain. The defendant also gave evidence. The evidence was very contradictory, and after a short consultation the Bench nonsuited the case. — [Own Correspondent, j August 29.]