LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 9035, 14 November 1892, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

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

DRUNKENNESS. — Four first offenders were fined 5s and costs each, or, in default, 24 hours' imprisonment. One first offender, who did not appear, was fined £1 and costs, or, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment. William Robinson was lined 10s, or, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment. A Serious Charge. — William Powell was charged with, on or about October 19, at Auckland, unlawfully using a certain instrument with intent to procure the miscarriage of a certain woman named Fairley Jane Lucy Clarke Mr. Cotter appeared for the defendant. On the application of Sergeant Gamble the case was adjourned for a week. Alleged Failure to Provide.—Thomas Richard Gillman was charged with having failed to provide adequate means of support for his daughter, Mary Selina Gillman, a destitute person. Mr. Matthews appeared on behalf of the complainant, and defendant appeared in person. Mary Selina Gillman deposed that she was 41 years of age, and was physically incapable of earning her own living. For some time past witness had been supported by her brother. Witness had twice applied to her father for assistance, but in vain. She had not lived in his house for seven years. Witness had been ejected from her father's house owing to differences with her stepmother. After this defendant sent the Rev. Mr. Miller to witness to ask her to return home. Witness left her homo eleven months after her stepmother entered it. Defendant had three children by the last marriage. Edward Gillman, brother of the last witness, gave evidence. Defendant deposed that his second wife had never lived in the same house as his daughter. Dr. Giles said that he did not think there was sufficient cause shown for the Court to interfere. Complainant had shown nothing specific as to why she left her father's house, or as to why she would not go back, except that she could nob get on with her stepmother. Complainant had not shown that she was a destitute person within the meaning of the Act. The case was dismissed.