CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 7539, 16 April 1886, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

: Thursdas, April 15. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Drunkenness. —A first oli'tndev was discharged.. The "Licensing Act.—Bonifacio Zurbn.no was charged with having, on the 3rd hist., allowed drunkenness on his licensed premi.s&s, the Prince of' Wales Hotel, suoH being contrary to the provisions of the Licensing Act.—Mr Joel appeared for the defendant;.—Constable Mad-, dern gave evidence that at 30 minutes past 8 on the evening of the 3rd inst., in consequence of information he received, he visited the defendant's) hotel, and found a drunken man lying on the floor in front of the bar. He. had .seen him at intervals during the afternoon, and about an hour before the time stated he had told the man—who was then standing at the hotel door— that he had had enough drink, and that it was time he went home. He was afterwards arrested for drunkenness. — Constables Christie and Jeffery also gave evidence.—Mr Joel pleaded that the drink supplied to the man was supplied by the barman, and that an employer was not responsible for the acts of his servant. —His Worship thought there was a case to answer. After evidence for the defence, his Worship fined defendant 20s and costs, the conviction to be endorsed on the license.

The Industrial School.—Charles Martin was charged with having unlawfully harbored one Edward Martin, who had absconded from the Industrial School. —Mr Gallaway appeared for the defendant. —Elisha Titchener, master of the school, gave evidence that the boy had been licensed out to the defendant; that the license hud been withdrawn ; and that the father now refused to send the boy back to the institution. The defence principally was that theboy was kept at home by defendant, but that he did not prevent the boy from going back to the school.— His Worship said the whole question was whether defendant had " harbored " the boy or not.— Charles .Martin, the defendant, gave evidence that on Monday last Mr Titchener went to his house and asked witness if he had any objection to let the boy go back. Witness replied that he had not, and that JMr Titchener could take him when he liked, but that the boy was not at home at the time. If the boy had been at home then he would have been quite willing to have let him go at once.—ln answer to.his Worship, defendant said that the boy had slept and had been fed in his house the week before Mr Titchener s visit.—Mr Gallaway: We admit that, your Woi'ship. You consider that is "harboring"?— His .Worship.:. There can be no doubt as to that.—After, an inquiry as to defendant's position, his Worship said that this was the first case of the kind that had come before the Court, but there did not appear to be "anj r. evidence that the boy had been-kept by the father in order that he might be a means of gain to himself. T This fact of course was a mitigation of the offence. He was liable to a fine of £10; but on this occasion he would be fined £1 and costs, the boy to be delivered up to Mr Titchener.

Maintenance. —A man named Smyth was charged by his wife, Agues Smyth, with failing to contribute towards the support of his five children.—Mr R. L. Stanford appeared for the plaintiff; Mr W. C. Macgregor for defendant. —From complainant's evidence it appeared that she had taken the furniture of the house and her children away without her husband's consent. — This was pointed out by his Worship as being a wrong action, and he thought it would be best if the parties would endeavour to effect a reconciliation.—Mr Macgregor pressed for a dismissal of the information ; but his Worship adjourned the case for a week, in order to see if a reconciliation could be brought about.