CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10358, 13 May 1895, Page 4

CITY POLICE COURT.

Saturday, May 11. (Before Messrs R. Eutherford and J. T. Ross, J.P's.) Drunkenness.-One first offender was convicted and nischiirged. ■ No i' Attending School.—For neglecting to send their children to setiocl Henry Obto Brandt | wns fined 2a, Robert Clark 4i (two charges). John Prentice (for whom Mr Hanlon appeared) 2s, Alexander Sickle 43 (faro charges), Horatio Nelson lino S.i (four charges), Frank Hannagan 2s. Charles Keats 8s (four charges), 'ieorge William JoQe-s 2s, and George Garriak 65 (three charges). Other charges against George Carter, Keury Robert BrAndr, John Prentice, William Hoot, Fr :nk Hannagan, Ellen Griffiths, George William Jones, and Francis Rawue were withdrawn.—.Mr Sim appeared for the ttufsnt officer. Prohibition Order.—Peter Pilet applied for a prohibition order against his wife, Anuie Pilet.— Mrs Pilet did not appear, and after Mr Pilet's evidence had been taken, the application was granted, covering Dunedin and the surrounding districts. (Before Mr R. Rutherford, J.P.) Obscene Language.—Margaret Chapman waa charged with having, o:V the 3rd inst., made use of obscene language in High streak— Mr Solomon, wno appeared for the prosecution, said tho defendaut lived in High street, and for a conI siderablß time past,-commencing in the month iof January of this year, she had been U3icg very j oad language. She was apparently under the impression that she had a' grievance against a Mr Wills, who lived in ths neighbourhood. "Whether she had nr not counsel did not know. In codsbquenceof this feeling towards him, she had lost her head and let her tongue ran riot, and made herself a nuisance to the neighbours. As a result of her repeated offenca, the police had been compelled to take proceedings, although loth to do so, as she was a very respectable woman. The? took action because they were compelled to do so by a petition from the neighbours. The object of this prosecution was to prevent the woman conducting herself in this way. It was impossible to got her out of the neighbourhood. If his Worship coasidered ths casa prr.ve'd. all the prosecution a.ked was that the woman should be ordered to coma up for sentence when cidled on.—Evidence w.13 given by John Wills (photographer), Mrs Wills, Martha V/yatt, and Thomas Wyatt.—Mr D. B. Macdonald, who defended, said it had been ftated that the informatiou was laid by the police, but it was palp&bie that the real movers were Mr Wyatt, his wife, daughter, and son-in-law, who were all living in tha same house. It was evident that rows had been going en all through, and these people asked the bench to believe that they never said an ill word to this woman. The fact was that they wanted to get Mrs Chapman out of the house. He (counsel) drew attention to the witnesses not having referred to the last expression in the information.. He would call two disinterested witnesses, who would swear that during the whole time of the disturbance the defendant never used these expressions at all. Tue prosecution was sot up to get a hold on th« j woman, as they had already tried to get her out Sof the house and failed. She was a respectable I woman, and had been in the city a coa--1 siderable time. She was a widow, and if she was

convicted it meant imprisonment.—Mr Solomon pointed out that he had asked that she misht ba called upon to come up for sentence—Mr Macdonaid asked the bench, to tihnvss the case and Jet thes'j people fight out their ovra squabbias — Evidence was given by the defendant (Ji.iro-a-ct Chapman, boatdinphonse keeper), Ernest Haggitt (compositor), and Joseph Stock (cook) —Ws \Vor • ship thought, the beat i,biog ?o do was to dismiss the case. He could not Bee there was anythiuc of importance that Iwd tiken placs to Jead to such a case talcing up so much tim;. ■ Gise dismiss»d