LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10428, 28 April 1897, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT.-Tdesday. [Before Mr. H. W. Brabant, S.M.] Drunken John Croker, for his fourth offence, was fined 10s, or in default 48 hours in gaol. Two first offenders were punished in the usual way Tueft of Mosey.—John Lucas pleaded guilty to the charge of having stolen 20a in money from James Kelly. Mr. Wilson Smith appeared for the defendant. The nature of the theft appears, from Serjeant Clarke's statement, to be as follows While Kelly was playing a game of billiards with another person the accused, at Kelly's request, held the money until the geme was over. Instead of returning it, however, he subsequently cleared out of the room with it. His Worship fined the accused 40s; ordered him to refund the 20s stolen. REMANDED.— On the charge that he stole £7163 of the money of Alice Melton, Arthur Halsey was remanded for a week. Alleged Lakceny.—Michael Hickey was charged with stealing an Anglo-Uerman concertina, valued at £4 10s, from William Chaplin, In giving evideuce the informant stated that he lost the concertina on Thursday last, and found it again, after he had informed the police, in the accused's possession on the following Monday. He, witness, was drunk when he lost the concertina. Evidence to support the charge was given by the arresting constable. The defendant then made a statement on oath, to the effect that on Thursday night Chaplin got him to hold the concertina when the latter had come oat of the City Hall. The plaintiff then went •way with another man. Witness waited tor an hour and three-quarters holding the instrument, but, as the owner did not return, lie gave it to the keeper of the oyster saloon at the City Hall corner to take care of. On Monday last he called for it and took it home, intending to advertise for the owner. On the way home, however, he called in at the Fitzroy Hotel, where he was soon afterwards arrested by Constable Connor and charged with theft. His Vorship did not consider that there was sufficient evidence adduced to justify him in committing the prisoner for trial. There was nothing to show that he meant to appropriate the article to his own use, which alone would constitute stealing. The accused was therefore discharged.