SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19783, 7 May 1926, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) The quarterly criminal sittings of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday before his Honor Mr Justice Sim. ALLEGED ASSAULT AND ROBBERY. George M‘Kay Pohvarth and Sidney Harris were charged that, on Tuesday, February 9, at Dunedin, they, being together with other persons, did rob Thomas Glendining Ramsay qf a wristlet watch and a silk handkerchief of a total value of £3 10s and that they did use person?! violence to Ramsay. They were further charged with stealing a watch and a handkerchief from the said Thomas Glendining Ramsay and further that they did assault Ramsay.

Both the accused pleaded not guilty. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for Pohvarth and Mr A. G. Neill tor Harris. The hearing was continued from the previous day, when the evidence of Ramsay had been taken. Mrs Henrietta Isitt, residing at 22 Stuart street, Dunedin, said she remembered the evening of February 9. She was on the footpath on the opposite side of Messrs Rattray and Son’s premises in Crawford street when she heard a cry for help. She looked across the street and saw five or six men standing round another man who was lying on the footpath. She could not see what they were doing. She could not go among the men with nothing in her hand, so she stooped down to take oft her shoe. The men in the meantime hurried towards Rattvav street, and went round tho corner in the direction of the wharf. The man on the ground staggered to his feet, and came over to her. He appeared to be very nervous and very excited. He told witness what had happened, and she went and .omul Constable White, near the fountain, bhe could not identify any of the men who Had been standing together. She had seen some men standing at the Terminus Hotel corner when she left Ramsay to go for a policeWitness examined by Mr Neill sold that. Ramsav got, up and was coming towards her as the men were just going round the corner into Rattray street. It was almost opposite Messrs Rattray and Son s premises that Ramsay had met her P His Honor pointed out that Mrs Isitt bad stated that she could not identify any ot the men. and tho cross-examination regarding hosv they went round the cornel was immaterial. • 1., Constable White said he was on ni.ht dntv at the Fountain on February 9. M™ Isitt came to him about a-qnarter pafit Witness then went down Rattray street and met Ramsay at the corner of Craw ford and Rattray streets. ,^ he " sneaking to Ramsay he J ® standing at the corner ot the Hotel. He went along and saw three men standing at the bar door. He asked them if they had heard of any dtstiu nance in Crawford street, and they said >oHe asked them how long they hai. been standing there, and they said for emne siderable time. Harris had triven Mm this information. He bw I!ain s . it he could not identify the others T ey said, in answer to a question, that they had seen several sailors going to y the wharf. Witness then went back and pot Ramsay where he had loft him. ihey went together past the lemmns H>•!tel. Ramsay was on the inside of tin footpath. The three men were still t ier. . Two were in the bar doorway, and the thud was ringing the bell at the rcmm oo . The men were facing him. »he clliei man had his back to him. Hams was Tt the bar door. This would be about half-past 10 o'clock. Witness went along Cumberland street from Rattray street, but could not see anyone about. Ramsay was unable to identify any of the men at the Terminus Hotel corner. M itness knew Pohvarth now, but he could not, sat he was among the men at the corll( ;*’- Cross-examined by Mr Hanlon, witness said he had taken Ramsay along to see it he could identify the men. . His Honor: Why did not you bring Ramsay face to face with the men. Witness: Well, we passed them at the doorway. . .. , . . ~ „ Witness said there was a light at cue corner of the hotel and one at the corner of the Triangle. The corner was we 1 lighted. He thought it was light enough for Ramsav to identify these people it he could. Witness had had no trouble m identifying Harris. Witness, h-wever, knew Harris, but Ramsay did not. To Mr Neill: Ramsay had said tlie men were dressed something like t-ie men who had attacked him, but he could not say for certain. , Detective Roycroft said he knew both the accused and he saw them on February 22 at the Police Station at 9 a.m. They were lined up with 14 others in the police yard. All the others were dressed in ordinary clothes, as were the accused. The men were shown to Ramsay, who identified the accused without hesitation. Witness then charged the accused. Polwarth made no reply to Ramsay’s identification. Mr Hanlon, addressing the jury, said that tho accused were charged with three offences. He said that if the jury believed Ramsay, who was the principal witness for the Crown, they must bring in a verdict of guilty of robbery with violence. If they could not believe Ramsay, the Crown had no case. The first count was most serious. The legislation had provided mo>t severe penalties for offenders. They need only centre their attention on the first count. If Ramsay had told the truth the accused were guilt,v. The whole case depended on the question of identification. Somebody had undoubtedly assaulted Ramsay. There had been half a dozen assailants, and the jurymen had to satisfy themselves that the accused were of that number. The only evidence was that of identification by Ramsay, whose statements could not be corroborated. No one else could say who it was Was it likely, he asked, that if the accused were guilty, they would have remained in the vicinity. The accused had been accosted at the Terminus Hotel, and had made no attempt to decamp. When the constable returned after going for Ramsay, the men were still there, and Ramsay, when confronted with the accused, had been unable to identify them as some of his assailants. All he could say was that those who had maltreated him were dressed somewhat similarly. Yet when taken to the police station a fortnight later. Ramsay, as the detective had said, had identified the accused—the same men—without any hesitation. Counsel submitted that such identification was not sufficient to convict a man. He scouted the idea that if these men were ffuilty, they would have remained so near the scene of the assault. He submitted that the Crown had no case at all. There was not a particle of evidence to justify a conviction. Mr Neill, addressing the jury, said he believed Ramsay’s story as to having been assaulted and robbed, but what was there to connect the accused with the crime? The a=sault was committed at night under the street lights, and Ramsay could not identify his assailants in the same light. Yet he had not hesitated in the police yard. Was it likely that he could identify the men any better two weeks later at the police station? His Honor, in summing up, said that if the accused were to be convicted at all they certainly ought to be convicted on the first count in the indictment, because it was clear from the evidence of Ramsay that on the night in question he had been set on by a gang of nfffians, who had robbed him of a watch and a silk handkerchief. The only question was whether the two accused were members of the gang. The question of identification was entirely based on the evidence of Ramsay. His Honor quoted tho evidence at length, and said that according to the evidence of the constable, Ramsay certainly did appear to have an opportunity of identifying Harris because Harris was standing on the footpath in the bar doorway facing him. The constable had no difficulty in identifying Harris, but Ramsay had failed to do so. and that was a few minutes after the robbery had taken place. Tho evidence of the then licensee of the hotel showed that both Polwarth and Harris were outside the hotel on the night in question. Apparently it was Polwarth who was ringing the door hell when Ramsay and the constable passed, but Polwarth had his b.'.ck to them, so that Ramsay really did not have a chance of seeing Polwarth’s face, and his failure to recognise him was not of much significance. It was strange, however, that Ramsay, who had the opportunity of seeing Harris’s face, did not identify him. In view of that failure the jury would have to consider whether it would be safe to act on Ramsay’s subsequent identification of Polwarth ami Harris when they were ranged in the police yard. The whole case depended on whether or not they were satisfied that the two men were members of the gang who had attacked and robbed Ramsay on the night of February 9. The jury retired at 12 minutes past 11, and returned at five minutes to 12 with a verdict of guilty on the first count. The accused were remanded for sentence. THEFT FROM A BUS. Sidney Harris and George M’Kay PolwtrTh were charged with the theft of a 1

cash-box containing £6 lls 9d on February 20 from a Dunedin City Corporation motorbus. The accused pleaded not guilty. Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for Polwarth, and Mr A. G. Neill for Harris. Mr F. B. Adams (Crown Prosecutor) said the offence took place in front of the main entrance to the Exhibition at 11.45 p.m. The conductor was away from his bus, which he had pulled up at the gates and left for about 10 minutes. Two boys had seen the two men go to the bus and feel round the floor in search of something. They struck several matches to assist them in their search. Charles Alfred Lawton Legg said he was in charge of but No. 6 on the night in question. He reached the main entrance to the Exhibition at 11.45 p.m. He took the cash-box, which contained £6 lls 9cl, from its accustomed place and put it under the back seat near the tool box. He left the bus and switched off the lights. When he returned after about 10 minutes his cashbox was missing. He did not see it again until 1.50 a.in. It was empty then, and had been found in the Leith, where the highway bridge crossed the stream. The entrance was, in comparative darkness. Aubrey Falmilton said he was 14 years of age He was in front of the Exhibition gates late on the night of February 20—at about 11.45 p.m. He saw a corporation bus standing at one of the gates. He was seated in a private bus close behind it With another boy. He thought the interior was in darkness. He knew the accused by sight, though ho did not know their names. He saw the two men enter the corporation bus, and later noticed them groping round under the seats, and striking matches. They were inside the bus for two or three minutes, after which one came out and walked up the highway. He thought it was Harris. Later Polworth followed, after having walked round the bus. Polwartli was carrying a bundle which looked like a cloth. He next saw the accused in the Triangle on the Sunday following. He went to the poliee station and identified them from a line of 16 men. There were two or three buses there at the time of the theft. Croas-exnniiped by Mr Hanlon, the witness said the acused veer in the bus for only a few minutes, and struck several matches. Polworth had the bundle under his arm. The accused spoke to the boys, and asked if their bus was going soon. Witness said they were not going for a while. He did not mention ! the other boy that .the accused were in the corporation bus, lighting matches. He said that if he stated in the lower court that the men struck only one match it must be right. He did not think either was wearing a coat. Too Mr Neill: 1 H : said he did not remember saying that the Exhibition gates were lit up. Two constables came up and spoke to Mr Wilson, the owner of the bus in which -witness was seated. He (witness) mentioned to the constables what lie had seen. He did not co- ' cr it strange that the men were striking matches in the bus. Tim accused knew witness and his companion were sitting in the bus at the rear of the corporation vehicle. Tne police spoke to the driver of his bus first, and then came to witness. The accused had no coats on. Wilfred Rupert Ellens said be was with the previous witness as a passenger in Wilson’s bus on the night in question at about 11.45. There were other buses about. He saw two m. i enter a corporation bus in front of the one in which he was sitting. He did not know the men when he saw them, though he was able now to recognise them as the accused. They went straight to the back of the bus and struck some matches, while groping round under the seat. Then they sat down in the front of the bus, later getting out and walking up the Highway. One was carrying a dark cloth. He had picked out Harris from the line of 16 men at the J olice Station, though he could not identify anyone else. The Exhibition light and the street lights were burning. Cross-examined by Mr lianlon, the witness said that neither of the accused spoke to his companion or hmiseif. Wh'en the accused got into the corporation bus the other boy said, “Look at me men in the corporation bus.” He thought about six matches were lit altogether. The men s, t down for a while, and left the bus to gether, going up the Highway. One of the men was wearing an overcoat. This was Polwarth. To Mr Neill, he said the bus was lit up inside. The bus driver asked him if lie had seen' anyone in the bus, to which witness replied that he had seen two men there. No other inquiries were made of them. Constable Dobson said he was on night duty at the Exhibition on the night in question. In consequence of a search he found an empty cash box .in the middle of the stream under the bridge of the Highway on the Sunday r arning, shortly after midnight. Constable Nichol said he was on night duty at the Exhibition on February 20. He first saw the two accused at about 20 minutes past 11, in the Amusement I ark. He was talking to them there, ihe two accused went towards the main gate, and he went to the Police Station at the Exhibition. He then _ went out the main gate to make inquiries regarding a complaint which had been received. He saw the two boys who have ghvu evidence, and rode his bicycle along the Highway to Frederick street. He saw four mem standing on the footpath at Frederick street near the intersection of Clyde street. He spoke to the men, and said crime had been committed a short time previously, and that he wanted to question them about it. Two of the men gave him satisfactory answers, but he was not satisfied with the answers given by Polwarth and Harris Harris said bis name was Charlie Mitchell and that he resided at No. 7 Howe street. Witness did not know where Howe street was, nor where Howard street was. When he questioned Harris regarding his name he had told him the nature of the crime. Polwarth said his • name was Mickey Walker, that he resided at Ponsonby road, Auckland, and that lie was staying at the Occidental Hotel. Witness called the other two men apart and asked them how long they had been in company with I olwarth and Harris. Polwarth and Harris tried to hear the questions he was asking the other men. Witness informed Harris that he was not satisfied with his answers, and told him he was going to accompany him home. When they reached the corner of Frederick street and Cumberland street Harris got Polwarth to come with them. They went along Cumberland street, and Harris stopped at Howard street. Witness asked, “Where to now?” and Harris said he was not going to take him any further. Witness said unless Harris took him to his home lie would have to come to the police station. Harris said he would not go, and struck him, and he (witness) thereupon arrested him. Polwarth was there, and kept coming close up, but did not put his hands on witness. Harris was searched at the police station, and had £4 6s 4d in his possession—£3 10s in notes, three single half-crowns, one shilling, nine sixpences, 12 threepences, and four pennies. The accused had informed him, when in Frederick street, that they knew nothing about the robbery. In Frederick street Polwarth had a parcel wrapped in a dark-coloured cloth. Witness felt it, and understood it was a teddy bear. The four men in Frederick street were handling money, and put it out of sight when he approached. Polwarth told him that they had intended purchasing liquor with the money. Detective Lean said that on February 22, in company with Detective Sneddon, he interviewed Polwarth on the Oreti. He told accused that he and Harris were suspected of the theft. He asked accused to go to the police station for the purpose of identification. ,Polwarth came, but he said that he had not seen Harris on the Saturday night, and that ho had gone to bed at 10 p.m. Witness lined the two accused up with 14 other men, and they were identified by the boys. Mr Hanlon said it was for the jury to say whether the Crown had proved its case. The evidence of the bus driver showed that his cash-box had been taken, and (ho question to be determined was whether one or other or both the accused were implicated in the theft. The two boys said the bus was there before they had reached the spot, and that no one was in it, so that anybody could haye taken the money before the hoys came along. There was no evidence (hat the money box was in the bus when the two accused were seen about it. The men had gone into tho bus in which the boys were and asked if the bus was going to town, and the boys had said “No,” and the accused had then gone into the bus in front. The accused, apparently, after looking about tho bus, sat down in the back of it, and they could therefore have been caught with the box in rheir po-scssion if they had it. ®ne of the boys said the accused were in the bus 10 or 15 minutes, and that nobody came io take tho vehicle away, and the accused then got out and walked up the Highway. The two boys’ evidence was contradictory as to what took place. One boy said that the men were speaking to them before they entered the bus. The other boy said they did not, and that they were never Dearer than tlie front of tlie oorporaticn bus. Hww ihe bars

said the accused were lighting matches. One boy said he thought they lit only one match. The other boy said they lit half a dozen matches. They should examine this evidence very closely. If only one match were struck the men could not have been making much of a search. One boy said the accused had walked out of the bus together and up the Highway in company. The other boy said Harris went off first, and that afterwards Polwarth came out, had a look at the bus, and then walked away. If they were thieves were they likely to stay where the robbing took place? One boy said Polwarth had on an overcoat. The other boy said neither had an overcoat. The evidence of the boys was not in accord —there were, indeed, serious discrepancies. There was the evidence that one man, when lie came out of the bus, was carrying something, and it was afterwards found to be a teddy bear. Had it not been found to be a teddy bear be maintained that it would have been put to the jury that it was the stolen box Polwarth was carrying. This showed then how little things could tell against a man. Unfortunately for the Crown and fortunately for the accused, it was found to be a squeaking teddy bear. That was the only thing the accused was seen carying, and it would have been difficult for them to carry away anything else without the boys seeing them. Referring to the wrong names given by the accused, counsel said that did not prove they were thieves. When the constable came along at midnight and wanted to know their names they gave false names, because they were apparently endeavouring to purchase drink at midnight. Polwarth had not wanted to be dragged into any trouble, and had said he had not been out on the Saturday night, but he had shown no reluctance in going to the station and standing in the identification row. Mr Neill, addressing the jury, drew atention to some discrepancies in tlie evidence given by the boys. One said the lights in the bus were out, the other said they were not. One said the Exhibition lights were on, the other denied it. The money found on the accused Harris was in notes except for 16s 4d in cash. The Crown’s case depended on the boys’ evidence. Council submitted that the accused, knowing that tiio boys were sitting behind. would not have dared commit the crime. It was not common sense to suggest it. Suspicious circumstances were no evidence of crime. His Honor, in summing up, said if they accepted the bus driver's evidence then it was proved that a theft had taken place. It was for the jury to decide whether one or the other of the accused had committed the theft. There were certainly serious discrepancies in the evidence of the two boys, and it was for the jury to say whether they would bo justified in accepting their evidence. Another important point was that there was nothing to show that the money-box was there when the two men came to the bus. That was another matter for the consideration of the jury. The money in the possession of Harris did not tally with the money in the bus moneybox. He understood the money in the box consisted of silver and coppers. The bus driver did not say there were any halfcrowns in his box. He said the money was in two-shilling pieces, shillings, sixpences, threepences, but no pennies, Tne jury would have to say what weight could be attached to the fact that the men gave false names, but that did not carry them very far. The jury retired at 5 o clock, and returned at 6.10 with a verdict of guilty. The prisoners were remanded for sentence CHARGE OF BOOKMAKING. Walter Goodman was charged with, on February 12, carrying on business as a bookmaker. . Mr C. J. L. White appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guiltv. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr b . t>. Adams), in opening the case for tlie Crown, said that the charge preferred against the accused was laid under the Gaming Amendment Act of 19-0. As to the evidence required to establish the charge counsel quoted the law. J hou«u the onus of proof was lartfgly on the Crown, he said, there was au obligation on the part of the deience to disnrove. The issue of a double chart was one of the characteristic things of a bookmaker's business. The Crown would thrust the onus on the defence of proving that tne accused was not carrying on the business of a bookmaker. All the Crown could do was to reveal accused m one place carrying on the business of a bookmaker. The law had stood on the Statute Book since 1920 and the point was not whether members of the jury approved or disapproved of the statute. It was a question of whether the law had been broken. Detective Bayliss said that on 1 ehruary 12 last he entered the bar of the find-i-on Hotel at about 3.15 p.m. by means of the front door. He noticed the accused in conversation with another man just inside the bar. He had never seen either of the men before. He watched the two men, and saw the accused Hand the other man a double chart. His attention had been called to the men by the loud remarks of the accused to the effect that he was working on a commission of la n>. the pound. As the accused handed the other man. Thomson, the card he asked if that were any good to him. The reply was in the affirmative, and Thomson then gave the accused a 10s note. The accused then made an entry in a black note book, afterwards moving further along the bar to two other men and handing each a double chart. Neither registered a bet with him. He later accosted two more men and supplied each with a chart. He received nothing in return. The accused then went to another man in the corner of the bar who received a chart, but handed it back, together with something else. Witness asked the accused if he had a card for the next day. The accused produced a card, and witness marked the names of Arpent and Tommy Dodd, who were to race at Wingatni on February 13. He asked for 5s each on Arpent and Tommy Dodd, proffering a £1 note. The accused returned to the bar to change the note. He gave witness his 10s change, after which witness asked him to come out into the private room, where he told the accused who he was, and asu.;d him what he had in his pocket. The accused produced the black note book, which witness seized. When asked to accompany witness to the station the accused returned to the bar, but he came eventually. When about 100 yards from the station accused put his arm round witness’s shoulder, and as witness turned round he saw a piece of screwedup paper on the ground, which he found to be a double chart. The accused was not drunk, but he made no attempt to lower his voice. The accused said his name was Williams, but later he gave his correct name. He said he was working for somebody, but refused to divulge any names. Cross-examined, witness said he had noticed entries in the black notebook relating to contracting work. The note he gave the accused was not a marked one. Ho had not gone to the hotel with the intention of catching the accused. The man Thomson accompanied accused and witness to the detective office. Witness made no statement to Thomson to the effect that he would not be prosecuted if he gave evidence. Witness denied having said he was going to make things hot fajp the accused. David John Gordon Thomson, a teamster, said he was in the Gridiron Hotel on the day in question. He had a few drinks. The accused, whom he had never seen before, offered him a double chart, which he took, though he told the accused he did not want to take a double. He eventually took a double on Set Sail and Baldowa. He could not recollect what the odds were. The accused wanted him to take another double, but he would not. lie paid the accused a 10s note for the double which he took. Tlie detective was not in the bar when witness entered. He saw the accused accost other men after lie had taken witness’s double. Witness heard the detective ask for a card on the next day’s racing, and saw the accused pass one over. The accused took witness’s name when the bet was made. Witness thought he would have an opportunity to collect any dividend at the hotel after the races. C'rosscx.uniiicd by Mr White, witness said lie had been in the bar for about an hour prior to leaving with the detective. Ho saw the accused speak to three others at least. Ho might have accosted more than three. It was after the detective had made his bet that the accused said lie “did not like the look of the joker.” Tlie detective had told him that if lie made a statement he would be safe, from which he gathered that he would be free from prosecution. He saw a solicitor after making a statement, and was told to stand by it. This closed the case for the Crown. Mr While, in addressing the jury, quoted the law regarding the illegality of bookmaking. Ho said it, was refreshng to know that tlie policy were beginning to realise that betting with bookmakers was rife in this country and that they were trying to suppress it, even though they were directing their attention to a man who was only supposed to be working on a commission basis. Counsel said that the evidence for

the Crown in this case was so unreliable that no credence could be placed on it. The Crown relied on the evidence of two witnesses, one of whom was a detective and the other a man named Thomson. Thomson was really an accomplice, and they must remember that an accomplice in law was regarded as perhaps the most unsatisfactory of witnesses. They found that before Thomson had made any statement to the police at all he had been given to understand that by so doing he would be free from any criminal responsibility. Counsel reviewed the evidence, and referred to the extraordinary carryings on of the accused in the bar if he were really a bookmaker. When a bookmaker was liable to a fine of £SOO and to imprisonment for two years for making a bet he would hardly be likely to carry on business in the open way alleged against accused. Moreover, would the management of the hotel allow such conduct to continue? The accused curiously enough did not accost the constable, although he was supposed to be accosting everybody else. Would a bookmaker make a bet with a man of whom ho bad any suspicion, and yet they had it in evidence that accused had said “he did not like the look of this joker,” the remark referring to the constable! Why was the barman not called to give evidence whether the £1 was handed to him by the accused? The constable had a whole host of witnesses in the bar. and yet not one had been called except Thomson, who had made his statement believing he was saving his' own skin. Then, again, they had the Crown contradicting itself on the point whether any guarantee had been given to Thomson. The jury should give attention to this diversity of evidence. It had not been shown by the entries in the black book that the accused was a bookmaker. The Crown had tried to make out that the scribbling in the book had something to do with betting, but this had not been p-oved. Ever, if they believed the Crown F.w-eontor regarding the possession of the double charts by Goodman, they should remember that the possession of these did not prove that a man was a bookmaker. In the ease of Goodman the charts related to different days and to different races. His Honor, in summing up, explained the law regarding the offenoa of betting. The evidence given, he said, was relied on by the Crown to show that the accused made a bet and that he gave cards to Thomson, to the detective. _ and to the other men.. If they wore satisfied to believe the evidence of the detective and Thomsen, then it was reasonable to be'ieve that a rase against the accused had been established. It had been suggested -by counsel for the accused that Thomson was an accomplfce, hut there was ample corroboration of his evidence by the detective. The iury retired at 10 minutes to 3 and returned at 25 minutes to 4. with a verdict of miiltv. The accused was remanded for sentence. AUCKLAND. (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND. May 7. Roy Morrison, first cook on the Matangi, charged with doing grievous bodily harm to Edward Knott, the second cook, on February 19, was found not guilty. In the case of Robert William Thompson, on a charge of attempted indecent assault at Victoria Park, the jury disagreed, and a new trial was ordered. Richard Waugh, charged with breaking and entering and theft on the premises of Mart Bros. (Ltd,), was found not guilty and discharged. WELLINGTON. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, May 6. Walter Daniel Fisher, Aged 35 years, who was described by Mr Justice Reed as a menace to society, was sentenced to three years’ reformative detention for indecent exposure, the sentence to be cumulative upon the present term for a similar offence committed since that upon which he was now charged. CIVIL CASE AT TIMARU. (Psr United Press Association.) TIMARU, May 6. At the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr Justice Adams, eight members of the Timaru Borough Council asked for a writ of mandamus to compel the Mavor of Timaru to submit to the Borough Council four motions in respect to the appointment of a blacksmith, which motions he had ruled out of order. After lengthy legal argument his Honor issued the mandamus in respect of one motion which stipulated that the proceedings instituted against Robert Welsh, formerly a blacksmith in the council’s employ, in tlie Magistrate’s Court for the possession of a dwelling house, the property of the council which he occupies, and the recovery of rent should bo discontinued. His Honor stated that the council had the right to have such a motion submitted to it for its decision. Costs amounting to £lO 10s and disbursements were allowed against the mayor.