CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 5949, 5 March 1881, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, 4tii March. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) The Dog Registration Act.—Edward Gen ever and Henry Norman were each fined la, and James Cunningham (who owned two dogs),' 2s, and costs (in each ease 7s), for keeping unregistered dogs. The two lastmentioned pleaded that their dogs had been registered under the old Provincial Ordinance up to the 31st inst., but his Worship intimated to them that the Ordinance was now repealed, and that they would have to re-register under the new Act. His Worship further said: Perhaps it is right ißhould state that the full penalty for thiS offence is £5, and the general rule upon which Igois to inflict a medium penalty In ordinary cases of this kind, therefore, the penalty would be 50s. The Act having only lately come Into force, lam inflicting these moderate penalties, but I will increase them from time.to time. ThE Licbssiko Act.—James Scanlan;tho li ensee of the Rose, Shamrock, and Thistle Hotel, was charged X. s Sibling to take place in tho hotel on the 19th of February.—Mr Macdonald appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.—The police rested their case on the evidence of William Lewis, painter who was unable to-state whether the gamblingthrowing for drinks"—was permitted or witnessed by the-defendant or his wife, and the-case 'was accordingly .dismissed by the Bench. His Worship said: I do not think the evidence is sufficient to convict, and therefore I shall dismiss the ease, but I ida not think the defendant is altogether innocent of the charge. I am inclined to, think he is guilty, notwithstanding that there is insufficient evidence to conwet him. J. F. Nixson, the licensee of Wain's Hotel, was charged with illegally selling liquor on ■' £ a&"7 /v ?!£ut> -wl>o. '.appeared for the defendant, submitted that there was no offence disclosed in tho information. It was laid uider the 33rd section of the Provincial Licensing. Ordinance, which stated1 "Anybody-holding a license under this Ordinance." Ihe defendants license was not issued under "this ?*;»^" /but under the new Act.—His Worship said that the Act and the Provincial Ordinance must be read in conjunction with each other, but ho knew that the section in question had been repealed and the case would have to be dismissed. He expressed the,opinion that the present licensinglaws were regular pitfalls.and that it was desirable some new and comprehensive ones should be passed — After the luncheon adjournment, his Worship explained that he was wrong in stating that the S3rd section of the Ordinance had been repealed. He had made his statement in consequence of a lead-pencil note alongside the clause in his copy of the Ordinance regarding an appeal ease—Duffy v. Dodson. He found on further examination of the note that it read that the clause during tho hearing of that case was held to nave been not repealed. . Husband and WiFE—Elizabeth Barton charged her husband George Barton, with assaulting herat Opoho °" *hV sV. urt—Mr.Dcnniston "PPeared for the defendant.—After some evidence had been heard which revealed an unfortunate state of things exis* ng between husband and wife, the case was dismissed wKeS SS1 SSIX« Forcible ENTRY.-Richard Bacon Wilson waseharged with having on the Ist inst. broken into the Boys' High School with intent to commit a felony.—Mi- Stout appeared for the accused.—Alexander Hay, janitor of the Boys' High School, and William Macdonald rector of the school, gave evidence as to finding two windows of the school broken; the door of a desk in which the school fees among other things were kept, broken in, apparently with blows from a boot • and a water-tap turned on, causing danwe to a number of books.—Two boys, named Arthur James Murray and John Murray, saw the accused in the High School ground on the Ist inst. at seven minutes past 7 p.m. The first-mentioned also saw him go round to the back part of the school.—Richard Pearson, licensee of the Salutation Hotel, said the accused met him in Arthur street at a quarter to 10 o'clock on the night of the Ist inst., and asked for a bed ~ Detective Walker stated that he saw the accused on Inursday at 1 o'clock. Witness told him he wanted to speak to him about the High School. He said "I just wanted to see you about that; I heard I was suspected of that ; I can account for every minute of mv time that night; I slept at home." Witness said You were at the High school at 7 o'clock in the e?i n» nC-' t He said "No '• * was at the Union Hotel i, i "™ne?. s ] aske<1 him to go with him to the High school. He did so. Witness, at the school, in the presence^of Dr Macdonald, asked him to take off His right shoe. He complied with this request and witness was about to make a mark with it on the door of the desk which had been broken into when he said, "Oh no, you don't; not with my shoe." Witness then took an impression of the solo of:the shoe on^ the piece of paper produced. In witness' opinion the impression corresponded exactly with the marks on the door of the desk produced.-This was all the evidence, and his Worship said : I desire to depart slightly from my usual course on this occasion ; but before doing so I would request the gentlemen of the Press not to report what I am about to say because I nm,£°T? to.£ elmrk on the evidence to give Mr Stout, counsel for the prisoner, an opportunity of replying • and as a rule, in committing, I never make any remarks on the evidence. His' Worship then re* T^l^r evidence and intimated his intention of committing prisoner for trial.-The prisoner reserved his defence, and bail was allowed in a surety of his own recognisance for £20 and two others of £10 each

a Hni^K ?.? an: dam> Insurance Co. .Embezzlements.— fromPth ST!,'? ch!"Se<i with having embezzled for^if a6^ Insurance Company two cheques, June, 1880, respectively.—Mr Stout appeared for the prosecution and Mr Kettle for the defence.-John ££sLdepos^:. Z am • 'vmnture merchant, r^f,,. o", buf">ess under the title of -'Craig si-fmiSl? T 1 had. l'roPerty insured in the Standard Insurance Olnce. The cheque for £8 15s produced is mine. The receipt produced was given to me. It was made out on tlie 6th of April, and signed by the accused. The cheque for £8 produced was given for insurance. 1 believe I gave it £0 the accuscd.-Crosa-exwnined.-: I think I have paid oi^ mi mo"« - Oi Ot- her Pe™ons- I n^'o paid premiums to Charles Reid, Jun.-Vernon R. Hackworth, teller in fo ioiT ? a onk' cashed tho two c»eques produced, for £S 15s and £8. Witness had seen the accused in Me Bank, but did not know whether he had presented these particular cheques for payment.—Crossexamined : He had seen other clerks of tlie^ Standard Office in the Bank. —Charles item, formerly manager of the Standard Insurance company, stated: The amounts £8 15s and £8 aro C?it re7. as havin? °een paid in the daily register book 01 the Company in the accused's handwriting. The aa 'O' register onght to be made up from the rough cash-book. When cheques are received they ou"ht vu ? *° the cashier. who ought to bank them. lne cheques produced have never been paid to the tl c iL the. Company.—Cross-examined: On April the 6th the clerks in the office were Messrs Jerome, Weidner, Montzsbn, John Reid, and Hogg. Anybody at the counter could receive money. Mr Hogg'neveireceived any money. He was never at the cSunter. I never gave him authority to receive money. We never kept an account in the books of defalcations.— Mr Kettle: .Have, there, ever been defalcations?— Witness: There have been. These are the present ones.—Mr Kettle: Have there ever been any defalcations in Chnstchurch?-Witness: What do you call ri«£*l ? SA ou*:, what have we to do with Christchurch ? I object to that.-Witness :It is irrelevant altogether.-H,s Worship: Ido not see what we have to do with CWchurch.-Mr Kettle: These accounts s?, m ™ hrou£ h *he Dunedin books—His Worship: Supposing they do, what have Christchurch accounts to do vnth Dunedin ones ?-Mr Stout: The question is! what became of these identical cheques ?—Mr Kettle (^witness): Are the two previous years' premiums $'- c"»?. an<l Gillies accounted for?-Witness: YesMr Kettle: Can you tell whether they were paid by cheque or by cash ?-Witness: I cannot.-The further heanng of the case was adjourned till Monday next. —The following evidence was given on an information charging the accused with the embezzlement of cheques for £15 and £3165, and money amounting to £14 on the Stb of January, sth June, and Bth May, 1880, respectively:-Thomas Low, of the firm of Esther and Low : I was insured in the Standard Office. The cheque (produced) for £3 16s is mine. I received the receipt produced. I paid the cheque to and received the receipt from the accused

AN EXPLANATION. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—ln your leading article in this morning's issue referring to Mr Fish's absence from the Council, the following sentence appears :—" In the City Council there was peace, and even Councillor Carroll in the absence of his chief (meaning Mr Fish), was mild as any sucking dove." With all due respect to you for your opinion of me, I do not think that I am tho member of the Council who deserves such a coniDli■ment. By ■ inserting- the above you will oblige.-

Joins 1 Carroll,

March 4th.