LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8556, 2 May 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

R.M. COURT.— [Before Dr. Giles, 11.M.]

Judgment Summons — The following cases were dealt with :Henry Chas. Burleigh and L. J. Williams v. Alfred Potter, claim, £10 0s 6d. Mr. Burton appeared for the judgment creditors, and Mr. Napier for the defendant. After taking evidence this case was dismissed. Joseph Gleeson v. Win. Slator, claim, £3 16s 6d. The defendant's evidence showed that he was not in a position to pay, and the case was dismissed. David Watt v. Oliver McCreagh, claim, £25 18s. The case was dismissed after the defendant had been examined.

John Robbins v. James Johnson.— Claim, £4 4s, alleged to be due for money advanced to defendant by plaintiff. Mr. F. Shortland appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. C. Madden for the defendant. After hearing the evidence His Worship gave a verdict for the plaintiff without costs.

POLICE COURT.—

[Before Messrs. J. Gordon, and J. Sayage,-J.P.*s.]

Breaking and Entering. — Richard Smyth was charged with breaking and entering the warehouse of Walter Parkinson, of Wellesley-sfcreet, on the 18th April, and stealing therefrom goods to the value of £300. The same prisoner was further charged with breaking and entering the eamo warehouse on the 27th April, and stealing therefrom money and goods to the amount of £1 7s 9d. Inspector Broham stated that, as he understood Smyth would plead guilty to larceny, he would withdraw the charge of breaking and entering, considering that the accused was but a lad. J. A. Tole, who appeared for the accused, said he would plead guilty,to the larceny of the goods. The boy was only 15 years of age, and had hitherto borne a spotless character. Be was at present an ap- 1 prentice of Mr. Jones, saddler, who spoke very highly of him. He would ask that he ! bo dealt with under the First Offenders' Probation Act. The case was adjourned until Tuesday next, pending the report of the probation officer. Bail was enlarged. Broaching Cargo.— Bright and Thomas Hughes, articled seamen on board the British ship Broomhall, now lying in the port of Auckland, were charged with having, on the voyage from London to Auckland, on the 26th February last, broached the cargo of the said ship, and stolen therefrom IS bottles of whisky, valued at £4, the property of Frederic Dundas, the master of the ship. Mr. T. Cotter appeared for the informant, and Mr. O'Meagher for the defendants, and pleaded not guilty. Frederic Dundas deposed that the accused were seamen on board the ship Broomhall. On the evening of the 26th February he gave instructions that the crew should be supplied with a bottle of brandy between them. Shortly after midnight witness woke up and found the ship was off her course. Hughes was at the wheel, and was quite drank. He smelt strongly of whisky. Witness had considerable difficulty in removing him from the wheel. Seven of the men had drink from the bottle of brandy. Considering that the brandy had been di vided between seven of them, he thought it peculiar that any of them should be drunk. His suspicions were aroused, and on making a search it was discovered that three cases of whisky had. been broached. From one case 11 bottles had been taken, five from another, and he also saw one broken bottle. From one of the cases which had been opened no bottles had been taken. The men never admitted having broached the cargo, but Hughes had stated that he was sorry for being drunk, and that he had been drinking for a bet. Alfred Gilkins deposed that he was second mate on board the Broomhall. On the evening of the 26th February he noticed that the ship was off her course. He went to the wheel, and found Hughes drunk there. He afterwards noticed that Bright was also druuk. He saw no one else the worse for drink. Mr. O'Meagher contended that there was really no case to answer, and that there was no proof that either of the men had .broached the cargo. The Bench considered that there was a case to answer. Mr. O'Meagher stated that in that case he would throw the responsibility upon the Bench. He would not put the men in the box nor call any evidence. The Bench would have to convict the men on the evidence before them. Mr. Gordon stated that he thought that Mr. O'Meagher was not treating the Bench fairly in this matter. They were anxious to have the whole matter placed before them. Tho Bench decided *o dismiss the case without prejudice. Dirty Yards.—Harriet Dewson, James Harrison, Mary Keir, Susan Wells, Mary Bedford, John Isaacs, Julia Stone, and William Ward were all charged with committing a breach of the city by-laws, by neglecting to keep clean the yards used by them in Albert-street. Mr. George Goldie appeared for the municipal authorities. On the application of Mr. Madden the cases of Harriett Dewson, Susan Wells, and Mary Bedford, were adjourned until Monday next. Margaret Keir was fined 10s and costs for being the owner of a dirty yard. James Harrison, John Isaacs, Julia Stone, and William Ward were fined Is each for similar offences.

Nuisances.—Bridget Ellen McClennan was charged with allowing the contents of a privy to overflow from premises occupied by her in Abercrombie-street. Mr. Goldie appeared on behalf of the City Council, and Mr. O'Meagher for the defendant. Defendant deposed that she "was not the occupier of the house, and the case was dismissed. William Clark was fined 2s 6d and costs for a similar offence. _ Unregistered Dog.—David Taylor was fined Is and costs for keeping an unregistered dog.