CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10359, 14 May 1895, Page 8

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, May 13. a.. (Bsfore Messrs A. Solomon and T. Scott; J P's) .;2_^ NX? Nv El s'~TV 0" flrSt offenders were con** victed and discharged * Breach of the Peace.-Patrick George Morrissey p-eadea guilty to usine behaviour in Princes street, on Sunday nigbt, whereby a breach of the peace^ was occasioned; and was fined 20s, in aetault seven days imprisonment. Charge of Rape.-Jeremiah O'Brien, David xUorris and James Ker were charged with having, on tbe 11th met., assaulted Annie Whitelv, with intent to commit rape.-Mr Hanlon appeared for Morris, and Mr Sinclair for Ker.-The particulars as alleged by the woman are that she was assaulted by the three accused on a vacant section at the corner of Stafford :and Hope streets, about 10 o clock on Saturday night. O'Brien was arrested by Sergeant M'Kay almost immediately afterwards, and the other two by the detectives on bui-day night—Sergeant O'Neill asked for a remand until Friday, and counsel offered no objection.—Oa the question of bail being mentioned Mr Sinclair said that Ker's parents were well known, naving lived here for over 20 years. The bail, be submitted, should not be high —Sergeant O'Neill said the police did not object to bail, but they expected it to be substantial.—Mr Hanlon said that the three boys were charged with indecent assault on a woman of not narticularly good repute, and their AVorships had to take into consideration whether it was a case of a young girl brutally assaulted, or whether it was a case that might turn out to be very trumpery.—Mr Solomon said the duty of the bench was merely to fix such bail as would cause the accused to appear again.— Mr Hanlon agreed, but said that if the assault had been committed upon a woman of the town uheir_ Worships should not ask for such substantial bail as if the offence was a more serious one. He submitted the offence was a paltry one and small bail would be sufficient. The boys would be entitled to get out under the Probation Act—The Probation Officer : Not combinations, --lhe Bench remanded accused to Friday, baii being fixed at each accused in £50, and two sureties of £25 each, or one of £59. _• Cattle Astray.—Por allowing cows to wander m the borough of North-East Valley, George Atkinson was fined Ss, and foi- allowing horses to wander in the same district Thomas Godfrey was fined a similar amount both without costs "' A Dangerous Log.—Bernard Madden was charged with having on the 3rd inst., at the North-East Valley, permitted a dog which was well known to be dangerous, and which was known to have bitten Gertrude Clough to go at large without being muzzled.—Madden was defended by Mr Hanlon, wbo pleaded not guilty — Sergeant O'Neill stated that the dog wa*- found'at large by Constable Lynch, who called on defendant about the matter. Instead of taking steps to remedy the nuisance, the man told the , constable that he (tbe constable) was at large himself, and added that he should Igo and ' put his head in a bas." Defendant had been previously fined on account of the dog.—This was admitted by Mr Hanlon — Constable Lynch said that he had warned the defendant about allowing the dog to be at large. Several complaints had been made about the animal, which was known to bo a vicious brute. On the day ou which the offence was committed the defendant was on the tram and the dog was running alongside.—Mr Hanlon read section 15 of the Log Registration Act, which was as follows :—" Any person who shall nermit any dog which shall b*.- known to be dangerous, or to have bitten or injured any person, or any cattle or other property, to go at large, whether with a registered collar affixed to it or not, without bein°muzzled in such away as will admit of the animal breathing, &c, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s, and any such dog so at large may be forthwith seized and killed by any constable." The section meant counsel maintained, that a man was not entitled to take his doR out along the road simply because at some time it had bitten some person or was thought to be dangerous. This, he thought was monstrous. In this case the evidence showed that tlie dog was always in charge of someone.—The Bench fined aefendant 2s Cd, and were of opinion that a man riding on a tramcar had not sufiicient

control over a dangerous animal.—Mr Hanlon said that although he was prepared to call evidence if tbe bench had not given a decision, he would not do so, as all he could prove was that the defendant had control of the animal. The law did not say that a man must have control over his dog