LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8423, 26 November 1890, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—In Chambers. Tuesday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.]

Arrointment of Executrix. —Mr. Hesketh moved that Catherine Barnetb be appointed executrix and trusteo under the will of Thomas Barnett, deceased, in place of John Fisher. The application was made under the Act of 1885, and Mr. Hesketh said that Mr. Fisher, who had realised the estate, now desired to bo relieved. Mr. I)evore appeared for Mrs. Barnett; The order was granted. Pkobate.—Probate was granted to the executors in the wills of John Langdon and Alexander Davidson.

Administration.—Letters of administration with will annexed were granted in the estate of Thomas Beecher, deceased. Accounts.—Re George YVyatt, deceased, Mr. Hesketh moved that the executors' accounts may be passed, and that they be allowed such commission as may be considered just. The accounts prepared by Mr. VVaymouth were put in, and showed that £6850 had been realised, a portion of which had been paid to the widow, and the balance safely invested, and the executors now applied for commission, no provision being made for their remuneration in the will. His Honor decided bo refer the matter to the Registrar to report on. Appointment ok Trustee.—Mr. Napier moved for the appointment of a new trustee in the estate of W'iremu Patene, deceased. Dr. Laishley appeared in support of tlae motion, and said the application was made under the Trustee Act, ISS3. His Honor thought the application should be made to the Native Lands Court, under the Maori Real Estate Management Act. Dr. 3-aish-ley asked that the application might be allowed to stand over, and ho would bring under Mr. Napier's notice what His Honor had remarked. Adjournment granted. McLkou v. W'isii^rt. —Mr. Hesketh moved on summons to defendant to show cause why questions of law should not be argued before trial for action. In the absence of Mr. Cooper, who was to appear, Mr. Hesketh asked that this application might be allowed to stand over. The adjournment was granted. Leonard v. Union S.S. Co.—Mr. Campbell moved on summons to show cause why the statement of claim should not be set aside or amended. Dr. Laishley, who appeared (instructed by Mr. Napier) said he did not oppose the application, for on looking into the matter he considered Mr. Campbell was entitled to the amendments which ho claimed. The application was granted, and plaintiff ordered to amend his statement of claim by supplying particulars indicated in the summons.

POLICE COURT.—Tuesday. ' (Before Dr. Giles, R.M.]

Wandering Cattle.—.Joseph Byers was charged with having allowed 13 head of cattle to wander at Mount Roskill. Mr. Devore appeared for the defence, and pleaded guilty. He pointed out how one of the cattle, for some reason or other, suddenly went wild, and gored one of the men in charge. While assistance was being sent for the cattle broke away from control. Dr. Giles said that no doubt the practice of driving cattle in the public roads was a dangerous one, but in this case there were several circumstances to modify the offence. He thought a fine of Is and costs would meet the case.

Fireworks. — Gilbert Rountree was charged with having set off fireworks at Ponsonby, to the danger of J. H. Field. Defendant pleaded not guilty. J. H. Field deposed that he was a printer, living in Sentinel Road. On the 10th November he was driving home about seven o'clock in the evening, having in the trap with him an old lady, 80 years of age, and two young ladies. When near Air. Rountree's house he noticed several flashes, and heard loud explosions, which frightened his horse to such an extent that witness had to spring from the trap and hold him by the head. He could easily have quietened the horse had not the explosions continued, causing the horse to struggle from his control and fall, damaging the trap to a considerable extent. Witness saw Mr. Rountree with a number of others setting off the fireworks. Defendant on being told of the damage dona, said that he would pay for it if it was his duty to do so. Emma Field deposed that she was in the buggy, and saw crackers thrown into the road, and judging from the direction from which they came,, it was her opinion that they came from Mr. Rountree's premises. Wilhelmina Field gave corroborativeevidence. Defendant contendedthat he did not endanger passers-by, inasmuch as Mr. Field did not pass by. Moreover, he did not let off the fireworks himself, but they were let off by the children. Mr. Field had no lights at the time, and in attempting to turn' his trap upset it, and then ran down to defendant in order to fix •the guilt on him. Dr. Giles considered that the theory of the defendant that Mr. Field was not a passer -by was more ingenious than sound ; it was sufficient that he was a passer on the road. He was surprised that a man in Mr. Rountree's position should set up the defence that he did not let off the fireworks, when he stood by and encouraged the children to do so by his presence. The case must be considered as clearly proved. He would impose a fine of 40s and costs.

Theft of Money.—Robert Kelly, Charles Walker, and Thos. Hutchison were charged with having stolen a £1 note, a halfsovereign, and 15s in silver, the property of Catherine Munro, on the 24th November. Mr. T. Cotter appeared for the defendants, and pleaded not guilty. Catherine Munro deposed that she was living in Cook-street. The'three defendants came to her house on the evening of the 24th, about eleven o'clock. They knocked at the door, but being refused admittance they made their way through the window into her bedroom, in which there were tv, o other girls besides witness. She saw Kelly take a purse out of the pocket of Mary Knash's dress. There was £2 5s in the purse. Witness was held by Hutchison at the time. Shortly after this a knock was heard at the door, whereupon all three prisoners immediately decamped. Witness lived by means of prostitution. Mary Knash deposed to hearing knocking on the evening in question, and saw the three defendants, who, although refused admittance, soon made their way in. She saw Kelly take the purse from her dress pocket. Mary Sullivan also gave evidence to the same effect. Constable Mathieson deposed that he arrested the accused owing to information received from Catherine Munro. The defendant, Hutchison, denied that he entered, the house occupied by Miss Munro by the window, but said that he came in by the back door, which was not locked. He was sura that Kelly did not take the purse from Miss Knash's dress. They left the house because Miss Munro said that the police were coming. Charles Walker and Robert Kelly gave evidence similar to that of the previous witness. Dr. Giles said that lie did not think the evidence either satisfactory or sufficient. Even if Kelly took the purse, there was nothing on which to convict the other t wo ; in fact they were almost independent witnesses. He did not, in estimating the evidence, take the characters of the girls into consideration, for everything that might be said against them might be applied with equal force to the defendants, who visited their house at night. He would dismiss the case.