CITY POLICE COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5604, 2 June 1905, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

THURSDAY, JUNE 1. (Before Dr A. McArthur, S.M.) A first offender was fined I Os, or twenty-four hours’ imprisonment, for drunkenness. VAGRANCY. Leonard McKenna pleaded guilty Jo a charge of being an idle and disorderly person with insufficient lawful means of support. 110 said the rivers, being in flood, had prevented him returning to Orongoronga. Chief - Detective McGrath stated that tho accused had keen “loafing” about town for some weeks. Ho had several previous convictions. Accused said if ho were given another chance ho would go away, and asked for a. prohibition order to bo issued against- himself. Accused was convicted and discharged, consent being given for the order to be issued. William Hislop, a decrepit old man, was charged with a similar offence. At half-past 11 on Wednesday night he was found by tho police, sitting on a doorstep in Willis street. He had 10s. lOd in his possession. Sub - Inspector O’Donoran stated that accused bad given an incoherent account of his doings during tho last six months. He had been previously convicted for drunkenness and theft, and had been turned out of tho Ohiro Homo. Several times ho had been found sleeping out. Accused said ho would like a sentence to- put him over tho winter. Three months’ imprisonment was the penalty inflicted. PECULIAR MAINTENANCE CASE. E. J. Tressidcr (on remand), for whom Mr Wilford appeared, was charged with leaving his illegitimate child in Hobart, Tasmania, without providing for its maintenance. Detective Quirk, stationed at Wellington, stated that he arrested accused, on a provisional warrant, at the Fresh Food and Ice Company’s, where ho was employed. Accused stated he had been expecting arrest for months. Sergeant Cotes, stationed at Hobart, Tasmania, deposed that the warrant for accused's arrest was signed by a person sworn in. as a Magistrate for tho whole of Tasmania.

For the defence, Mr Wilford said tho warrant was issued by virtue of tho provisions of tho Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881. This was an English act, which applied to all British possessions, including Tasmania and New Zealand. Section 13 of the act provided for what was called the backing of warrants, and, further, it was a machinery clause by which accused was able to bo arrested and brought before this Court. Counsel raised three points—(l) That tho warrant had not been duly authenticated within,the meaning of section 14 of tho act; (2) that there was no proof that it was issued by a person having lawful authority to issue same, as the individual who signed the warrant did so as a Justice of tho Peace and not as a Magistrate] Justices having no such authority; and (3) that no evidence had been brought before his Worship that (Siere had been a strong or probable presumption (as the act lays down there must be) that accused committed the charge preferred against him. Counsel maintained there was no evidence to prove accused to be the father of the child. Ho pointed out that under a Tasmanian statute, if a man left that State without providing for the maintenance of his child, the bailiff could take prcceedings, and have the fugitive’s property sold, and tho proceeds handed over for the child’s keep, which had been done in this case, although accused held tile documents entitling him to the property. Hr McArthur decided against counsel on tho first two points, and on the third ruled that it was not necessary tor him to go into evidence, favourable or unfavourable to accused. There might- he something in Mr Wilford's contention, but it was obviously his duty to leave the Supreme Court to alter the decision if ho was wrong. He ordered prisoner to be handed over to the Tasmanian police. On the application of-Mr Wilford. the order was suspended till the Bth inst., to allow the matter to bo placed before a Judge of tho Supremo Court. Bail was allowed to bo renewed—one surety of £SO, or two of £25. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was for plaintiff in each of the following cases Canada Cycle and Motpr Company v. Charles Foster Cook, for £l3 and return, of a bicycle, or in default £34, costs £3 Is; Leonidas Maria Smith V. Henry Sylvaster, £1 15s, costs ss; same v. John Thomas, £1 2s 6d, costs ss; Laery and Co., Ltd., v. Norman Campbell, £3 14s 7d, costs 15s; H. Baldwin and Co. v. Harry Holman, £7 2s 6d,' costs £1 3s 6d; Veitoh and Allan v. Robert Spittal, £8 8s Bd, costs £1 os 6d; R. C. Brian v. Patrick McGrath, £1 3s, costs 5s ; New Zealand Farmers’ Co-operative Distributing Company, Ltd., v. F. H. Laing, £25. costs £1 3s; Williams and Bowen v. Alfred E. Cleaver, £5, costs 22s 6d. CHARGE OF TRESPASSING. The Hataitai Land Company, Ltd., for whom Mr Hadfield appeared,brought an action against J. J. Moor© for trespass, and claimed £2O for damage done by defendant’s horses to newly-made roads on tho Hataitai estate. The damage was caused, counsel stated, by tho horses wandering over the road embankments. Ho said the company had sued defendant on a previous occasion. H. A. Shepherd, secretary to the Hataitui Company, and several other witnesses, gave evidence for the prosecution. Defendant, who was not represented by counsel, said the company only brought the action for spite. The company had placed a fence across a road leading to Kosenonth to prevent him using it. He called several witnesses in support of his case. Dr McArthur awarded the plaintiff company £lO damages, with costs (£3 15s). Ho said it was quite clear the horses had wandered about' the roads.