CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10599, 20 February 1896, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Tuesday, February 18,. (Before Mr W_ L. Simpson and .Captain Su'ndstrom, J.P.'s.)

• Drunkenness.—One person charged with this offence was fined 10s, in default 48 hours' imprisonment.

Larceny.—Margaret Haggitt was charged with having stoleu, on the 15th inst., one brass mould, one electrician's hammer, two chisels, two screwdrivers, one nair of electrician's pliers, one pair of electrician's pincers, four gimlets, one jar of acid, one shirt, oue counterpane, one dozen pocketharidkerchiefs, one piece of fancy work,.'. six yards of lacework, a crochet cover, seven and a-half yards of calico, three reels of crochet cotton, one bodice, one coal, one nightdress, one carpet bag, and two towels, of the total value of £.. the property of "Walter Holbourne Hart.—Mr C. M. , Mout appeared for the prosecutor, and Mr 1), D. : Macdonald for the accused.—Mr Mouat asked for an adjournment until next Friday. The circumI stances of the case', he said, were somewhat i peculiar. The information was only laid on the [ previous day/ and ' a search warrant was issued for tbe purpose of finding the tbiugs , iv the house of ■ the accused, A great I mariy things were enumerated in the charge, but ! only a coat had beeu found, and it was necessary to get a very important witness in the case. That j witness could not be procured that morning, and | therefore he (learnod counsel) asked for an adjournment.—Mr Macdonald said the prosecutor in the case was boarding witb the defendant. He hired a room from her, and had been living with her for a considerable time, and he (learned counsel).thought it was admitted that she kept bim and his wife in food and did everything for them. . They, however, left in her debt for £3 for. rent, ami a box of things was left in the house. The defendant stuck to the box because she could not get her rent paid. Then the prosecutor sued her before ihe stipendiary magistrate, and the box was ordered to be given up. The box was given up, and his..client was now accused of taking these things out of it. The first thing she knew of the matter was when she saw the search warrant on the previous day. The house was then searched, and cinly' one article was found, and that article belonged to her husband.—Mr Mouat observed that his friend was stating the faotn from.his point of view. The accused had acted in a very strange manner over the whole affair. She seized the prosecutor's box for about £3 due for board and lodging-, ancl . he did all he possibly could to try and pay her. The prosecutor obtained an order for the return of the box, but although he sent an express for if two or three times she refused to give it up. Her husband, like a sensible man, eventually sent the box, audit was found that a largo number of.the articles it contained wera gone ; and the accused had threatened before I hat she would taketh.ein — Mr Simpson remarked that the whole circumstances seemed to point to civil proceedings rather than criminal—not one thing pointed to criminally. Before 'the prosecutor took criminal profile lings he should have beeu leady to proceed.•Mr';Mouat : I thiuk-you are entirely wrong about, the matter.—Mr Simpson :If you are in a position to show me that there is a criminal cas-i I shall grant an adjournment.—M.r Mouat was proceeding further to refer to the facts of the" case, when Mr Macdonald interrupted him by remarking to the' bench that what he said was not correct.—Mr Simpson thereupon observed : I never take a solicitor's state-, ment as worth anything.—Mr Mouat: I dou'tknow what you mean by that remark —Mr Simpson : I mean as evidence.—Mr Mouat said he was acting on instructions, and had stated what he had been instructed was tho case. He pro-' i ceeded to say that when the prosecutor got his box it was found that about £5 worth of'goods had disappeared. It had previously been iv accused's possession, and she had threatened she would take the goods.—Mr Simpson said ther* was a great gulf between that aud theft. Theft was a personal matter. There might be responsibility in tbe present cn.iu, but if tbe accused was responsible she was only responsible in n civil capacity.—Mr Macdonaia said his client said i-he did not know what was in the box, and there was nothing to show but that the box was in the same condition when the prosecutor got it as it was iv when he left it at accused's house. Not one of the things it was slid had been stolen had been found but a coat, and that could be indubitably proved to belong to accused's husband. It was one of the i most monstrous cases that ever came before, a court of justice.—Mr Mouat said that the witness he wished to produce would, he understood,'prove, that tbe accused said that the coat was iv the box, and accused waa going to arrest tbe prosecutor for taking tho coat, which she said was hers. ; The evidence, would also ,show that she -renl-ly took the coat out of the box, and it was stated by . both the ac used and the prosecutor in the.Magis-. trate's Court that thu box was locked.—After Mr Ma-dooald had further addressed the court, Mr Simpson said he was satisfied that it was a stretch of tbe criminal law to bring the same beforo that court. He would give the prosecutor an opportunity, if he, wished, to bring a civil action.—Mr Mouat observed that if all ths thing's had beea found ia accuseds house his Worship would | not have thought as he did. — Mr Simpson pointed out that it would not follow in that, case that the accused had stolen them.—Mi' Mouat :T ask for an adjournment until Friday.— Mr Simpson: I refuse an adjournment.—Mr Macdonald asked the benc'i to dismiss the case, but Mr Mouat said he would withdraw it.—Mr Simpson thereupon intimated that the bench would allow the case to be withdrawn, and Mr Macdonald remarked : I suppose it sounds better than getting it dismissed. JSUen Finnigan and Bridget Diggs were charged with having on the 7th inst. stolen one jacket and one dress; of the value of 10s (id, the property of .Tane lones. — Both the accused pleaded not guilty, and Mr Hanlon, .instructed by Miss Nevison, appeared for the accused Pinnig.n.—From tbe evidence it appeared .that the accused were seen walking down Walker- street, together by Benjamin Jones, the husband of the prosecutrix, who noticed that the woman ■ Diggs was wearing a skirt which belonged to his wife. Subsequently the accused Went to the shop of John Stanley, a, second-hand dealer ia Walker street, and disposed of a jacket, which was found to be the property of the prosecutrix. When the accused Finnigan was arrested, by Constable .Cooney,. she said she . took a jacket and gave Mrs Jones fid in coppers, which she left on the table at Mrs Jones's house. Accused Diggs also made a statement when arrested to the effect that she bought two jackets from Mrs Jones, aud gave Sd for them.—Mr Hanlon submitted there was no case whatever sgaiust the accused unless it was shown that tbey had no authority to remove thn tbiugs, and there was no evidence of a felonious taking away. Although the accused Finnigan had been guilty of other vices for years p<vrt, there was never any 'suggestion'that she had been guilt of a dishonest act. It was, therefore,' very improbable that she stole the things she was charged ivith stealing and he submitted that their Worships should hesitate to send them to gaol without other evidence—The Beach sentenced each of the accused to 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour. Alleged ■ Assault.—Thomas Wilkinson was | charged with assaulting James M'Mullan and ] with using threatening language towards bim at I Green Island ou the 7th inst.—Mr Macdonald ! appeared for the prosecutor, ond Mr Hanlon for the defendant.—Sir Macdonald stated that the i complainant was a baker living at Green Island. The defendant, who had been dealing with him, owed him an account, including the sum of lis, mouey lent. When complainant went to get the matter settled words ensued, and defendant caught M'Mullan by the collar and used threatening' language towards him. Although the assault might appear to be trivial, legally it was an assault, and complainant wished to be secured from further annoyance in the future.—Kvidence having been given, Mr Hanlon admitted that au assault had been committed, but it was of such a trivial character that the Bench would be juetifieU in exercising their powers in dismissing the case As to the threatening language, it was provoked by complaint nts | conduct, and a small fine only should be inflicted.—The case of assault was dismissed, and for using threatening language defendant was fined 10s and costs. Cattle Wanderinil—For allowing cattle to wanderat the North-Kast Valley, YeungYung was fined 2s (id aud Jas. Pollock ss. - AVednesday, Feuruary 19. I (Before Messrs N. Y. A. Wales and A. Thomson, j - J.P's.) Drunkenness.—James Crook was fined ss, or in default 24 hours' imprisonment; Annie', Pilet 20s, in default.l 4 days' imprisonment; and three first offenders were convicted and discharged. Vagrancy.—John Shanahan, a young man, for whom Mr Mouat appeared, pleaded nqt guilty to a charge of being idle and disorderly, and with having insufficient lawful means of support.— Sergeant O'Neill called .ivideiice to prove that for some time past accused had beeu loafing about town, associating with persons of the criminal class. He attended country race meetings, did no work, and it was. suspected that he was not gaining Ms livelihood in an honest manner,—For the defence Mr Mouat contended tbat the charge was not proved.. Accused had made efforts to obtain work, but,,unfortunately, without success. He expected to get employment when thu harvesting was on. — Accused was convicted and ordered. to come up $or sentence when called upon.