LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 12833, 5 April 1905, Page 7

LAW AND POLICE.

POLICE COURT NEWS. \ YESTEBDAt's sitting of the Police Court was held before Mr. 11. W. Dyer, S.M. Drunkenness: The only person charged under this heading was a, first offender, who was fined 5s and costs. Remanded: Alfred Gill, alias' Cavendish, alias Clifford, alias Cordon, alias John Frederick Gill, was charged with stealing a portmanteau and its content-, value £17, lrom the Auckland railway elation on January 4, the property of SirgGeorgo Clifford. On tho application of Chief-Detective Marsack the case was adjourned for a week. Assault Case: James Hughes'' was charged, on tho information of John Andrews, with having assaulted him at Newmarket on March 4- by striking him in the face with his fist. Mr. Mahouy prosecuted, and Mr. Reed, defended. John Andrews, coachbuiklei, Epsom, said lie and defendant were neighbours 15 months ago, and then a trivial difference occurred between them, and in consequence they did not speak afterwards. However, on the evening of the assault he saw defendant at Newmarket,, and lie came up and asked witness how he was getting on. Witness informed him that he was all right. Defendant then said they had not been friends, and said, Let's shake hands." Witness agreed to do so, and they clasped hands. Defendant, while holding witness' right, dealt him a, blow under "the neck with his left fist, which caused the witness to stagger. Defendant then offered to fight witness and a friend ho had with him, but this offer was declined. Defendant then used bad language and tried to get at him again, but some of his friends took him away. Tho defendant bad been drinking, but was not drunk. A few days latei, when he knew that proceedings were being taken, defendant came to him and asked how much ho would tako to "square it," and witness said he only wanted a written apology, but defendant said ho would rather give him £50. In answer to Mr. Reed witness said the first quarrel occurred when he informed Mrs. Hughes that she was telling lies. He did not put his hand out to defendant first. Defendant did not push him up against a verandah post, but punched hi in. The .'eonstable who examined witness immediately after he received the blow said ho could see a red mark on his jaw. He did not tell defendant his brother would fight bin for £10 or £20. This evidence was borne out by several witnesses. James Hughes, the defendant, a boilermakei, said there had been trouble between himself and Andrews previously. On March 4 ho was in company with his wife waiting for a car, when ho saw Andrews. He went up to remonstrate with him for having mimicked his child. Andrews held out his hand and witness took it. He half-turned round, and Andrews put his fingers up to his nose to him. He (witness) then pushed Andrews with his right hand and he fell against a verandah post. There was no blow or push given while they had one another by the hand. They then moved away, and Andrews followed and put his face close up to witness and said, "Goon; hit me." He went down to Andrews' place on tho following Thursday to try and keep the ease out of Court, as he had never been mixed up in a Court case before. Andrews said to him, "1 will find some Auckland man to fight you for from £10 to £20." In answer to Mr. Mahonv witness said be had had only two drinks all that day. It was not exactly a gentle push he gave him. He did not use any bad language. He had said to Andrews' mate that he " would strike him too," but lie did not know why ho said " too." Several witnesses corroborated the defendant's statement. Constable Lipseombe, called by tho defendant, said he saw Andrews at about nine o'clock on tho night of March 4. Ho complained that he had been assaulted by Hughes. Ho examined the place where -Andrews said he had been hit,' but could 6ee no mark. The magistrate said ho was of the opinion that an assault bad been committed, but it was not of a serious nature. A fine of £1 and costs, £2 9s 6d, was inflicted. Separation Order: Plieobo RalsUm applied for a separation order under the Married Persons Summary Separation Art from Alexander Ralston, on (ho grounds that he fails to provide for her support. The evideueo as given by his wife, who is 57 years of age, was that- defendant earned from £6 to £7 a week. Ho hail not contributed ' anything towards hoi maintenance, but squandered the money in drink. She had two children, one of whom was unable to work. She bad been going out. nursing. She- had been keeping him by working herself. An order was made fo: defendant to pay 15i per 1 week towards his wife's support, and a separation order was granted. A Neglectful Husband: Alfred Charles Ward was proceeded against by Mr. Strathcm, relieving officer, lor fading to contribute towards (lie maintenance of his three children. Mr. Stiatheru said defendant'.-) wife had three children, lie had two or three times induced her to go and live with him, and she had consented, but lie had reduced her to poverty. Defendant said i he wanteVl his wife to go back to him. He had done his best, but admitted lie had not contributor' anything for the upkeep of the home for a year. An order was made to pay 35s a week. Order Against a Grandfather: Robert Leathart was charged with that, while being the grandfather of Maud Leathart's two children, who are destitute, he failed to provide them with maintenance. Tin- facts of tho case were that the mother of the two children could do no work, as one of. them was only one year ant l , eight month: old, and the other eight weeks. The father of the children was in gaol, and likely to lie there for another 10 month.,. The defendant was the father of the husband, and he was receiving from 35s .<> £2 a week. The defendant said his wife, he admitted, hud means, but he did not know the extent of them. An order was made to pay 2r 0d a week towards the support of each of the two children. Defendant was ordered to pay costs. Mr. Brookiield prosecuted and Mr. Alexander defended. Maintenance Casts: George Onion was charged with disobeying tin order of the Court to provide 8s a week- towards the .maintenance of his two children. Sir. Skel ton, who appeared for the prosecutrix, Mrs. Onion, said that the defendant had frequently got. in arrears, and was now £5 8.1 behind. The defendant was ordered to pay up the arrears within six wee!;-; nr else go lo gaol for a month. Thomas Preen was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment for being 10s in arrears on an order for the maintenance of his father. If the arrears were paid, up by Saturday, he was informed, the sent..nee would be suspended. An order was made against Frank Thomas Keeper to contribute 15s a week towards the maintenance of his three children. William Butler was ordered to pay up the arrears of £5 within three weeks on an order for tho maintenance of his wife, Anna Butler. Samuel John Smith, whose wife said she had only received £7 18s from him iii the last 18 months, had an order made against him to pay 15s a week towards the keep of his two infant children. Frederick William Sims was ordered a month's imprisonment for non-payment of £1 arrears on an order, the sentence to be suspended until Saturday. John James Kelly, who had not paid anything on an order in favour of his father for 5s a week, was ordered to go to prison for three months, tho sentence to be suspended if defendant paid 10s a week off the arrears, £6 10s. S !