CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10265, 24 January 1895, Page 4

CITY POLICE COURT.

Wednesday, January 23.

(Before Messrs H. Gourley and J. L. Sillies, , J.Fs.) Drunkenness.—A first offender was convicted and diccharged. Lakrikinism.—A youth named John Stewart pleaded guilty to breaking a pane of glass, valued at 30s, the property of Joseph Cragg, Princes street south.—Sergeant O'Neill stated that about 10 o'clock on Monday night last Constable Gleeson saw the accused and another man jostling each other in Princes street. Afterwards there was the sound of smashing of glass, and the two ran away. Constable Gleeson pursued them and overtook accused, who, as their Worships were aware, had plpaded guilty to the charge. There was a number of previous convictions against Stewart for various offences. —Mr Gourley observed that accused had bean guilty of wanton destruction of public property, and the soener that sort of thing was put a stop to the better. A sentence of one month's imprisonment with hard labour would be inflicted.

Cattle Wandering.—For allowing a cow to wander at St. Kilda George Chapman was fined 5s (without costs).

Damaging Property.—Three respectable locking young men, named Alfred Naylor, James Trainer and David Simpson, were charged with saisshing a window valued at £i in the old police barracks in Maclaggan street, and doing damage to a gate to tho extent of 10s, the property of T. Bennett, on the 16th inst. —Mr Hanlon appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty.—The police called David Langley, living in Maclaggan street, who stated tint at 2 o'clock on the 16th ha heard a disturbance, and, looking out, taw soma men larking about. They smashed a gate, and with one of the pieces they broke one of the windows in the old police station. They then ran away in the direction of Clarke street, and returned again. Witness thought his windows might be broken, and he got up. Th«y started kicking at a Chinaman's door, but did nothing further. Aftarwards they were accosted by a policeman, who took their names. It was a moonlight night, but at the time the moon was obscured, and witness could not identify the faces of the men. He would swear, however, that the men he saw smashing the window were the same men that tho policeman accosted. — Agnss Langley also gave similar evidence.—Cha«. Roberts said that from the appearance of the accueed he would say they were the same men whom he saw break the gate, and who were standing near the window when it was smashed.—Thomaß M'Gregor gave evidence that he was near the Universal Hotel when he heard the noise of something being smashed. The accused at that time were walkiug up thu street in front of him on the side opposite to the old police buildings. They went to the Chinaman's shop for cigarettes. There was a light burning in the shop. There was a number of people about. He saw some whom he recognised to be bowlers. They looked as if they had been having a good time of it.—Constable Williams also gave evidence.—Mr Hanlon spoke on behalf ot the accused, and submitted that there was no evidence to connect them with the offence.— Their Worships stated that they could Hot convict in the face of the evidence given by Mr M'Gregor, and the cases would therefore be dismissed.

Whipping a Boy.—Frank Cassidy was charged with assaulting a boy named Patrick Soeehan by b'eatin< him with a whip at South Dunedin.—Mr J. Mouat appeared for the accused, who pleaded guilty. Counsel submitted that defendant was provoked to a great extent, as be had been told the boy had been Iwtting his horses out of the paddock. He caught him there, and merely gave him a few strokes with a whip.—Mr Hanlon stated that the defendant had struck the la,) on the bare legs with such severity as to leave marks visible at the present time, although the affair happened on Monday last.—A fine of 2s 6d, and 19a 6d costs, was inflicted.

(Before Messrs J. L. Gillies and J. Hazlett, J.P's.)

A Complicated Affair,—A case in which the parties charged each other in .i most bewildering fashion came ou for- hearing.—Before it was called, and before Mr Hazle't had replaced Mr Gourley on th« bench, Mr Hanlon, who appeared for on« of the parties named Murrell, said: I have a somewhat dsagreeable duty to perform. The complainant Murrell has spoken to me with roft-rence to some trouble with one of your WorsMius, and under the circumstances he thinks 't. would be advisable to ask for an adjournment. He does not S'iy that he would not rsceive justice, but at the same time, when enmity exists, it would perhaps be advitaMo to consider the request. Of course your Worships will understand t'uat it is nothing to me. I am simply acting according to my instructions.—Mr Gourley: I am here today iv my ordinary turn and in response to & summons from the clerk; but I know what you are referring to, and I would sooner not sit tb hear these cases. I would suggest that you take an adjournment for ha,lf an hour so that the clerk may get another justice in my place.—Mr Houat, who appeared on the other side, said : Under the circumstances I shull not press Mr Gourley to nit, because if tnure is anything in this [ am sure that he would be rather inclined to ltan to the other side.—Mr Gonrley then retired, and his place was taken by Mr J. Hazlutt ano the case proceeded with.—Karv Currie charged George Foster with uaiDg provoking language towards her, and she also charged John Mm--it-11 with assault, while the latter brought a oouuter charge against her of using provoking lanfuagr.. Bridget Agues Murrell also charged Mary Ca<rie with using p'ovoking language.- Jttr Haulou appeHred for the Murrells, and Mr J. Mount for tho Curried.—The parties liv,- at Mouth Dunedin, and it was stated that John Murrell was riding home when his horse was nearly tripped up by a rope maliciously laid, it was alleged, acres the street by the Currie children.—On behalf of the latter, it was stated that the children were skipping and did not wilfully try to interfere with the horse. The parties interviewed each other on the matter, auil it was then the provoking language was said to be used.—The Bench decided to dismiss all the cases, and expressed the belief that the children, had not wilfully designed to trip the horse.