LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8541, 15 April 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT.— [Before Dr. Giles. 1t.M.l Drunkenness.Norah Williams was fined lOs and costs, or, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment. Stone-throwing.Thomas Elliott, Wm. Bridges, Alexander Simpson, and James Mahoney, all young lads, were charged with throwing stones in Upper Queenstreet, on the '27th March, to the danger of Emily McKinney. Mr. O'Meagher appeared for the boys Bridges and Simpson, and pleaded not guilty. Elliott and Mahoney pleaded guilty. Mrs. McKinney deposed that she was disturbed on the evening in question by boys throwing acorns, passion fruit, and stones into her house, the door of which was open. She did not know the names of any • of the boys. There might have been five or six boys in the crowd, but witness could not recognise any of them. Lucas Martin deposed that he lived next door to Mrs. McKinney. He heard a noise at her house on the, morning in question, and on getting out of bed he noticed Mrs. McKinney open her door, and immediately she did so, a number of lads poured a shower of missiles upon her. He thought there were about ten boys present, but he could not recognise any of them. . Some hours after the occurrence lie met Elliott in company with Constable Russell. Elliott, after some hesitation, admitted being with the crowd, but denied throwing any stones. Constable Russell deposed that from information received, lie went to Mrs. McKinnoy's house, and found the verandah strewn with stones, and the door and walls marked. He arrested the boy Elliott, who admitted having thrown some of the stones. Witness saw Simpson on the evening of the "2Sth March, and that lad admitted being present on the occasion ; Bridges also admitted that he threw a stone and a passionfruit, not at the woman, but at the house. Mr. O'Meagher then reviewed the evidence, and contended that it was not sufficiently strong to' warrant the conviction of Bridges and Simpson. William Bridges deposed that he had made no admission to the constable of having thrown stones. He threw nothing whatever at Mrs. McKinnoy's house. I)r. Giles dismissed Bridges and Simpson after cautioning them. Elliott and Mahoney were lined 5s and costs, or in default 48 hours' imprisonment. A Fencing Dispute.John O'Neill was charged with having made default, on the 27th February, at Birkenhead, in the payment of £6 10s to ono Henry Day, the said amount being one-half of the sum of £13, the cost incurred by the said Henry Day in the erection of a dividing fence between his property and the property of John O'Neill. Mr. T. Cotter appeared for the complainant, and Mahony appeared for the defendant and pleaded not guilty. Mr. Cotter stated that he understood that the defendant admitted being the occupier of an adjoining property to that owned by the complainant, and also that the proper notice had been served. It was also admitted that the amount was a fair one, anil had not been paid. The place was about one and a-half miles from Birkenhead wharf. There had

been a sort of fence, but it was in a most dilapidated condition, and quite insufficient to retain cattle. It was never contemplated by the legislature that no fence could be erected until an accurate survey had been made, and that such fence must exactly without any deviation, follow the boundary laid down by a certain surveyor. The expense of this would in many cases exceed half the cost of tho fence. Such an interpretation would almost reduce the Act to an absurdity. He could understand an [order being made to have the fence shifted if not erected on the right boundary, but that should not exonerate the defendant

from half coat. Henry Day deposed that he had only to cut a few branches from a standing bush to enable him to erect the fence. His portion of the laud referred to was kept in grass. He saw defendant before he commeneod to fence, and told him what lie was going to do. Defendant replied "All right," but said the land would have to bo surveyed. Witness asked if ho would pay half the cost of a surveyor, and he replied that he had already got one, and the witness should get another. If these did not agree they could get a third. After the fence had been erected

witness asked for payment of half cost, but received nothing. Defendant said he would be summoned rather than pay, because the fence was not on the right line. Witness asked if he would pay if the fence was shifted on to the proper line. Defendant replied that he would not, and if witness touched the fenco he would have him arrested. In putting up the fence witness gave O'Neill more land than he had before. By Mr. Mahony : There was no bush worth speaking of on defendant's side. -"Witness had never surveyed his block. He believed there were ten links missing between witness and defendant, but could not speak with certainty on this point. At this stage Mr. Mahony pointed out that his client had paid all the cost of fixing the line of fencing* which amounted to £(3 10s. Day, however, never had a surveyor, and put up the fence at his own risk. Mr. Mahoney thought that the fence should be paid for by the complainant, as the defendant had all the cost of fixing the boundary. Dr. Giles thought the fairest way would be for each party to pay half the cost of the fence, and half the cost of the survey. When the proper boundary had been shown he would order that the fence should be erected along such boundary, even if it had to be shifted. Herbert Jones deposed that lie knew the properties referred to. There was no standing bush on Mr. O'Neill's side, it was what might be called open land. John Horton deposed tlpab lie assisted to erect the dividing fence. Mr. O'Neill's property was open land. Mr. Macfarland, surveyor, * deposed that he considered an amount of standing bush would have to be cut in order to strike the correct boundary. This bush was, however, upon the complainant's land. Dr. Giles then adjourned the case for four weeks, in order to hear j evidence as to the boundary. He was of opinion that the case should be settled between the parties. Charge ok Perjury. — Reuben Smith was charged with having committed perjury at Wallsend, New South Wales, on the 4th December, 1890, in a case of slander, in which he was the plaintiff, and Samuel Burgis and wife the defendants, by stating in his evidence that the handwriting on two envelopes, which were produced, was not his. Sergeant-Major Pratt, who appeared for the prosecution, produced the original warrant, which was identified by Constable James Green, of Wallsend. It was signed by Mr. Perrot, Police Magistrate. The accused, for whom Mr. (J. F. Buddie appeared, was remanded to New South Wales. - • : Alleged Breach of By-laws.—Paul Charlton Purchas was charged with having plied for hire as a porter without a license to do so. Mr. D. Goldie represented the City Council. The charge was dismissed owing to the want of sufficient evidence. Maintenance. —• Oswald, Bridges was charged with having failed to comply with an order of the Court that he should support his illegitimate child. The defendant gave evidence to the effect that he was out of work, and the case was, therefore, dismissed, His Worship reminding Bridges, however, that he was liable to be called on at any time to pay. _