CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4166, 25 June 1875, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

Thuksdat, 24th June. (Before E. M'Glashan and William Fraser Esq., J.P.'s.) Drunkenness.—James Brown was fined 10s, in default 24 hours' imprisonment. James Hill, arrested in Clark street, was fined 20s, in default 24 hours' imprisonment. Thos. Cook, arrested first in Crawford and then in Maclaggan street, pleaded guilty to two charges of drunkenness. Inspector Mallard Raid this was a case of " double drunk," accused having become reintoxicated when on bail. He was ordered to pay 20s, with the option of two days' imprisonment on each charge. Wm. Nicolson, one of the genus larrikin, who gave his age as fifteen, was apprehended in George street for drunkenness. Detective Bain said accused was a dangerous rough, witness having to handcuff him, and convey him to the Police Station in an express ; and even then he kicked and struggled so violently as to be hardly controllable. He was fined 40s, with the alternative of three days' imprisonment. Elizabeth Charlotte Frederick, a gaily-dressed woman, who admitted being drunk in the Justices of the Peace Court on tie previous day, was fined 40s, in default three days' imprisonment. Foul TjANCsh'abf. — Ann Reid, a woman whose name is familiar to Police Court habitues, was fined 20s, in default seven days' imprisonment, for using obscene language in St. Andrew street. Ann Sherrj', who had 32 previous convictions recorded against her, was mulcted in a

i penalty of £5, in defaidt three days' imprisonment A -Vagrant.- — Elizabeth Charlotte Frederick, charged,.."under the Vagrant .Act, with having no lawful means of support, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. An Ardent Dkuxkahd.—John M'Lnsky was fined £5, in default 14 days''imprisonment, j for drunkenness. He was charged with being] an habitual drunkard. Ajb prisoner faithfully promised to reform, this 'case was dismissed. Petty Theft. —Henry Heryott was charged, on the information of Daniel Black,.proprietor of the Gridiron Hotel, with haviug on the IGth instant stolen a quantity of fat, —After the evidence for the prosecution had been adduced, fche Bench interrrupted Mr Cook in his ad-<h-ess for the defence and dismissed.the;case. House Stealing.—John Riley was placed in the dock oil remand, charged with horse stealing. Inspector Mallard said that accused had been medically examined by Drs Fergusson and Brown, who Were of opinion that there were no indications of insanity about him. He asked if a priino. fitric ease was made out that this document be attached to the depositions.— Prisoner was committed for trial. Bkiaji v.—Catherina Amelia Cluirlotta Windsor was charged, on remand, with feloniously marrying one Michael Dryden, her former husband, Louis Schmid, being then alive.— Accused was undefended. — Jean Claude Chervier, officiating clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church, said that on the SOth February, 1871, he being then an officiating minister un-.'er the Marriage Act of New Zealand, and residing in Christchurch, married one Louis Schmid to one Kate Amelia Wiugate, the prisoner. On the x!)th instant he saw the said Louis Schmid in Christchurch, who was then alive and woll. He produced the marriage book, duly signed by Louis Schmid and Kate Amelia Wiugate.—Michael Dryden, expressdriver, residing at Dnnedin, stated that on the 15th instant lie was married to prisoner by the Rev Dr Stuart, at the house of John Niehol, Cumberland street. He then know her as Oatheriim Amelia Cluirlotta Windsor.—(Prisoner Luiked vindictively at witness and uttered au expression of cm item jit.)— Donald M'Naughton Stuart, a doctor of divinity, and officiating minister under the Marriage Act, recognised .•■.cc!;wd ;;s the person he married on the loth May, 157.-I, to Michael Dryden, fche last witness. ■—|The Coveriiment Gazette was handed in by Inspector Mallard, to prove that the rev. gentlemen who had given evidence had been duly ga/.etted ministers under the Marriage Act in New Zealand.] —This was the ease for the prosecution. The usual form being read over to the prisoner by the Clerk, she replied -- " I say this much, that Michael Dryden knew me to be a- married woman at the time of my marriage. He knew that my husband wa.s livingvwith me in Christehurcli at the time." Accused was committed to take her trial at the next criminal sitting of the Supreme Court. Food Anui.TKUATio.v Act.—John' Paules, dairyni.-Hi, Green island, was charged, on the information of Revenue Officer Lumb, with adulterating milk. —Mr Denniston defended, and the charge fell, on the ground that the milk was nivtsoldbr.tj--rocv.red. Prosecutor had asked him to supply him with a bottle of milk fur tho purpose of analysis.-—A similar charge against John Thompson was withdrawn «n the same ground.—Jolm Welsh was also charged with selling adulterated milk. Prosecutor described it as " the most gross case which had ever occurred in the Colonies." It was adjourned. — Michael O'Brien, iii answer to a similar charge, said he had run short, and the milk produced, whicli was impure, he had obtained from another man. He was fined os and costs. Bakj.us and Mii.i.Kiis Alt.—Walter Wright was charged under the Bakers and Millers Act, with selling bread not marked with a large Roman H. Defendant pleaded ignorance, and the case was dismissed.

.AIR KKEXE'S CASE.

TO THK EDlTtllt. Sin -As the member alluded to by Mr Alfred 11. Keene in your issue of the 22nd, who brought his petition before the Provincial Council after it had oucb been reported upon by the Private Petitions Coimnittee, I would wish to state that 1 consider Mr Keene to be somewhat premature in addressing the Press in the manner which he has done. He states that he has heard that the Committee ilo not intend printing tlie evidence in his case. Now. ill- Editor, ii such ivas the case, 1 should certainly quite agree wilh Mr Keene, that a great injustice was being done to him, as I am perfectly aware, a:; Mr Keene has stated, that he has not seeu a great portion of the evidence, and also that tho Committee did not grant his request and write to witnesses on his behalf. I think Mr Keene is doing an injustice to the ( '(juucil iv supposing that they would withhold the evidence in the case. Mr Iveene's case is a peculiarly hard one ; his qualifications arc not disputed, but his moral character is assailed, aud as a lover of fair play and manhood I would consider that Mr Keene should be given every opportunity of clearing his character from imputations, some of which he has not even had the opportunity of hearing himself. I cannot, therefore, coincide with Mr Keene that the evidence in his case will not be published.— I am, &c., John P. Akms'l'iionc . Dunedin, June 24th.