CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9116, 15 May 1891, Page 4

CITY POLICE COURT.

Thubbday, May 14. (Before Mr E. H. Carew, 8.M.)

A Destitute Child.—Ellen Mary Johnson (11) was charged with being a destitute child within the meaning of the Industrial Schools Act.—Mr Callan applied, on behalf of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, that the child be committed to St. Mary's Industrial School, Nelson. The child was committed to the school accordingly.

Maintenance.—George Baker was charged with failing to comply with an order of the conrt whereby he was adiudged to contribute towards the maintenance of an illegitimate child of which he was the putative father and Esther Le Bran was the mother.—Mr A. 0. Hanlon appeared on behalf of the informant, Alexander Le Brun.—Defendant produced reoeiptß showing that he had paid the amounts in conformity with the order,—Mr Hanlon remarked that it was not at his instance the summons had been issued, and the Bench stated that in view of the facts elicited the case would be dismissed.

Alleged Housebeeaking.—Edward Martin (17), on remand, was charged that on May 6he did feloniously attempt to enter the shop of James Cable;—lnspector Hickson conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr A. C. Hanlon acted on behalf of the accused.—James Cable, produce merchant, carrying on business in George fstreet, said that on the 6th inst. he left his premises about 6.30 p.m. The front door was secured with two locks, an ordinary lock and a stock lock. The following morning abont 7.40 he came down to his premises, and Constable M'AUan arrived some 20 minutes afterwards. One of the locks on the front doar was found to be unlocked, and a bunch of keys the constable had in his possession contained one which fitted the lock. Witness had never seen the keys before, but several of them were similar to the one housed himself.—Cross-examined: Witness tried the door before he unlocked the lock, on the morning of the 7th inst.— Constable M'AUan deposed that on the 6th inst. he was passing down George street and saw the accused at the door of the informant's premises. Witness went over and inquired what he was doing there, and accused replied " Nothing." i Accused tried to run away, but witness detain- \ ing him, brought him to the Empire Hotel, where he was searched. Witness found the keys produced in his possession, and the ascused stated that he got them from two boys named Dick Green and Wheeler. When nearing the Shamrock Hotel he said, " Do let me go, will you, and I will tell you all about the robberies, as I know them well, and will tell, too, if I am sent to gaol for this." Witness replied that he had no power to grant his request. When he (the accused) was being searched, witness asked him what he was doing with the keys, and he replied " that they were useful."—Cross-examined, witness was on the other side of the street when he saw the accused. His (witness') attention was attracted to the accused by the jingling of the keys, and there was a lamp burning about nine yards away from Mr Cable's door. Witness could see that the accused was endeavouring to open the lock, and when he was moving away witness crossed the road and detained him. Witness could not swear that the accused had any of the keys in the locks of the door. When he was being searched in the hotel, the accused said that when in the doorway of the informant's premises he. was looking for a match to light a cigarette.—Frank H. Guinness, licensee of the Empire Hotel, also gave evidence, which concluded the case for the prosecution.—Mr Hanlon submitted that a prima facie case had not been made out. To constitute an offence it must be shown that the boy did more than touch the lock with one hand. It must be shown that he had one of the keys in the lock; but the constable distinctly stated that be could not swear the accused did put the key in the lock. The evidence resolved itself into this: a constable comes down the street, sees a boy bending down in a doorway, and thelad afterwards walks quietly away. Next day the lock of the door is found to be unlocked, and the rationale was tho boy had unlockedit,consEquently he was arraigned on that charge.—The Bench considered that a prima facie case had been made out, and in answer to the usual question, the accused said he had no statement to make. He was then committed for trial.——Edward Martin, the came accused, was then charged with entering the premises of Swan and Masterton, on March 4, at Dunedin, and stealing therefrom one key, valued at le.—lnspeotor Hickson conducted the prosecution, and Mr A. 0. Hanlon acted on behalf of the defence.—John Swan, wood and coal merchant, carrying on business in King street under the style of Swan and Masterton, gave evidence that on the evening of the 4th iust. he left his office at 630 o'clock. Next morning he found evidence of some person having been in the office. The door was locked, but the key was gone,—Laura Hutchinson (14) said that on the evening of the 4th inst. she was standing at the upper window of her parents' place in King street, and saw a person going down the laae near the prosecutor's premises. Shortly afterwards a light appeared in the

I office window of Messrs Gtran and Masterton, and after burning for a few minute.s it was extinguished. Witness subsequently went out into the street and proceeded over to the place where she saw the person disappear. When she got there Bhe noticed him half bend-

ing down at the side door, and she cried out, " What game ? " The person did not reply, but went away, and witness with two or three companions caught a glimpse of his face' as he passed the light of a shop window. They saw that the person had a moustache, or his face was dirty, but were uaable to distinguish plainly. The next day a constable brought the accused to her, and she said that he was something like the person she had seen on the previous even-, ing. She stated, however, that the latter was taller, and as accused had no moustache she told the constable that the accused was not the person, — Cross-examined : The person witness saw was rather respectably dressed, and appeared taller than the accused. Witness was a few yards away when he (the unknown person) passed the light. She could not say whether he had a moustache, or whether his face was dirty.—He-examined: Some boys who were present told her not to say that it was " Eddy " Martin. Witness had seen the accused about a dozen times previous to this. Why she was asked not to say it was the accused was because they were not certain as to his identity.— This concluded the case, Mr Hanlon stating that he did not intond to address the court. He, however, contended that there was very grave doubt as to the identity of the accused, and the mere circumstance of the accused having a key in bis possession of a very ordinary kind, which happened to fit the lock of the prosecutor's door, was very slight evidence indeed. The only evidence of identification was that of the girl Hutchinson, and she too had some doubt in the matter.—Mr Garew asked whether Mr Hanlon objected to a commital, and Mr Hanlon replied in the affirmative. Mr Carew then stated that a jury would have to go further than any of the witnesses bad gone, and be did not think it was a case for committal. Accused would be discharged.

A Pitiidl Casb.—James Wheeler, a lad 12 years of age, who appeared in court barefooted, was charged with stealing the sum of £2 and a purse valued Is, on May 13, the property of Jamee Ooates, of DnnediD.—Accused pleaded guilty,—lnspector Hickson said that the lad went into the shop of Mr Coates and took a purse containing £2 that was in the till in the shop. He then ran away, and when arrested £1 was found upon him, which he admitted was part of the money stolen. The other £1 ho had given to a confederate. He had been twice before the court previously—once for being illegally on premises, and the other for 8 breach of the bye-lawe.—Accused was committed to tho Industrial School, to be brought up in the Baptist Church form of religion.

Pollution os? the Kaikohai Stbbam.— Charles William Anderson was charged with allowing factory refuse to flow j n to the Kaikorai stream, in Kaiborai Valley, on May 9.—Mr Chapman appeared to prosecute, and Mr Sim to defend.—Defendant pleaded not guilty.—Mr Sim stated that ho was forced to ask his Worship to grant an adjournment. The sammons was served on the defendant on the previously day, and as the case was only put into his (counsel's) hands on that day, he was quite unprepared to go on. It was only fair that Mr Anderson should be allowed a reasonable time to prepare his defeuca.—Mr Chapman remarked that Mr Andersen was only served with the summons on the previous day, but ho (counsel) had good reason to believe that ho was well awßre a summons was out against him, and in the hands of the policeman who lived near by. But Mr Anderson chose to keep out of the policeman's way, and even to lock himself in a room.—Mr Sim interposed with the remark that the constable only went once to Mr Anderson's place, and that was on the previous day.—Mr Chapman said that the constable went early in the day, and Mr Anderson, who caw him, and knew well what his errand waa, kept out of his way. Mr Bain had warned him two or three times, but nothing was done. So far from the case being a test case, they had hopes of there being no need of bringing a test case at all, for Mr Anderson was the only person in the valley who took no stepa to remedy the matter complained of, All the others had done something. If an adjournment were applied for at the request of Mr Anderson, he (counseH would ask that Mr Anderson be placed in the witness box, when he would tafce the epi;ort«Bity pf srpeg.camming hjfs,,-Mr

Carew: If the summons was served yesterday morning would not the request be a reasonable one f—Mr Chapman submitted that it would not. The facts and evidence would be confined to the premises, and Mr Anderson had plenty of time to prepare a defence.—Mr Sim said Mr Anderson was unable to get to town on the previous | day.—Mr Chapman: Has he got a telephone?— Mr Anderson : Yes.—Mr Bim: Could he telephone instructions?—Mr Chapman: He could telephone the nature of the summons.—Mr Sim said that Mr Anderson disputed the fact of there being any nuisance at all. He would ask his Worship to adjourn the case until Monday.— After further argument, Mr Chapman said that in view of the fact that expert evidence was to be brought forward, and this was the first charge of its kind ho would consent to an adjournment, but the other side would be compelled to pay costs.—The case was then adjourned until Monday next.