CITY POLICE COURT,

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9564, 21 October 1892, Page 4

CITY POLICE COURT,

Thursday, October 20. (Before Mr E. H. Carew, R.M.) Industrial Schools Act.—Herbert Highley (11 years) and Alice Highley (five years and 10 months) were brought up as children within the meaning of the Industrial Schools Act, they havingno means of subsistence, the father being dead and the mother being in indigent circumstances and unable to support them.—Sergeant O'Neill said the mother was in delicate health. The matter had been brought before the Benevolent Trustees, and they recommended that it be brought before his Worship. There were two other children now in the hospital, one being about U years of age.—The children were committed to the Industrial School, to be brought up in the Church of England faith — John Moyinhan (an infant) was brought before the court, under the act, for having no means of subsistence, the mother, Mary Moyinhan, having deserted the child, and the whereabouts of the father being unknown.—Sergeant O'Neill said that the mother came to Dunedin in the early part of June last. She went to the Benevolent Institution, Caversham, and was confined there. She said she was a married woman, and that her husband was at Zeehan. After she became sufficiently well she went to Smith street and handed the child over to Mrs Lee, giving her LI, aud agreeing to pay her 7s a week for the child's keep.- She said she had the choice of two situations, one at Balclutha and one at Falmarston. She th»n left Mrs Lee's house, and Mrs Lee had never seen her since. The police had made inquiries, but could not find anything of her. The Benevolent Trustees had advised bringing the case before the court. The mother was admitted on the 31st May, as a married woman, to the Benevolent Institution, aud left three weeks after that. She was 33 years ot age, and came from Wellington.—His Worship thought that the woman who took charge of the child acted very foolishly in taking it from a stranger.—At the request of Mr Galloway, who represented the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the child was committed to St. Mary's, Nelson, the society paying the necessary passage money. Ruth Whittaker (12 years <± months), Walter Whittaker (8 years 10 months), and Charles Whittaker (6 years 10 months) were brought before the court for being children within the meaning of the Industrial Schools Act, they having" no means of subsistence, the mother being in indigent circumstances and unable to support them, and their father being in Syduev. Sergeant O'Neill said that the mother was very intemperate. When she got a, little money she squandered it in drink, and the children were very much neglected. The police had brought the matter under the notice of the Benevolent Trustees, and they had recommended that the case be brought before the court. The police were at the house a little while ago, aud the mother was lying drunk ou the floor.—Sergeant Geerin deposed that at half-past 9 o'clock on Saturday night last he found the woman as described, and the children were standing near her. He described the wretched condition of the house. Again on Sunday she was the worse for drink.—The mother said she got LI a week from her husband.—The children were committed to the Industrial School, there, to be brought up in the Church of England faith. His Worship mentioned that something might be done in the way of utilising the money sent by the father towards the support of the children. Breach op the Licensing Act.—Thomas O'Gormau was charged with having, on the 16th inst, sold beer in the Old Brigade Hotel, of which he was the licensee, during the time at which such licensed house and premises were by the act directed to be closed.—Mr D. D. Macdonald appeared for defendant, and pleaded not guilty.—Sergeant O'Neill having stated the facts of the case, Constable Rutiedge deposed that he saw a woman come out of the side entrance of the hotel at night. She was carrying something, and it turned out to be a bottle containing beer. Witness took her back into the hotel, in company with Coustable Bonner. Saw defendant and asked him if he had supplied the beer, and he said he had not, but that perhaps Mrs O'Gorman had. In the company of the woman Hamilton, defendant, and Constable Bonner, witness asked Mrs O'Gorman if she had supplied the beer, and she saidshehad; that Hamilton was au old customer, and she did not like to refuse. She said the beer was not paid for. Hamilton then spoke up, and said it was paid for beforehand. Constable Bonner deposed that he saw the woman Hamilton come out of the hotel carrying a bottle of beer. Mrs O'Gorman admitted supplying the beer, but said she had received no money for it. Her reason for supplying it was that already given,—Annie Hamilton said she was in the hotel about a quarter to 1 o'clock. She went about half-past 10 o'clock first for beer, and only had a" shilling. She said "Nevermind the change; the 6d\vill do for another time." When she went in the second time she said to Mrs O'Gorman, "I have come for the 6d worth." Mrs O'Gorman said someone had already got it, but added that she (witness) should not be disapx:oiuted, as she would give her some beer. After leaving the hotel witness met tbe police.— This closed the case for the prosecution.—Mr Macdonald then addressed the bench, saying that the defence was simply what the 'lastwitness had stated. He called Bridget O'Gorman, wife of the licensee, who said Hamilton came at half-past 10 o'clock in the evening aud got 6d worth of beer and left 6d standing. Another girl, Lewis, came later on and got this 6d worth. Hamilton came subsequent to this, and witness told her that the girl Lewis had got tbe other 6d worth. Witness told her r.hat she need not be disappointed, as she could have the beer. It was a gift. When the constable was iv ho asked what change she gave the girl, and witness said she gave her none, as she received no money. The constable asked if witness nerved the beer, and witness replied in the affirmative. He Ei'.id,''. Why did you ?"aud witness answered, "Because she is a good customer, and I thought 1 should get something by serving her." He raid, "Don't you know it is after hours" ; and witness said, " Yes, certainly, but as I was receiving no money for the beer, I thought I could give it away."—Defendant deposed that a knock came to the door, and, on opening it, the constable asked if witness hud served the girl Hamilton with beer. Witness said no, but that his wife might Ir.ive done so. The bar was shut. Witness detailed the conversation between his wife aud the constable. Witness admitted the girl Hamilton, and knew she wanted beer, and, the circumstances being described to him, he sent her to his wife. Annie Lewis gave evidence as to getting the j second 6d worth of beer, and this closed the I defendant's case. —The impression on his Worship's mind was that the defence was a very cunningly constructed one. Accused would be convicted and fined L 5, and costs. I Conviction to be endorsed on license, ' I