Police Court

Southland Times, Issue 11757, 9 June 1891, Page 2

Police Court

Monday, Bth June. (Before C. E. Rawson, Esq., R.M.) LARCENY. John Sutherland was charged with having, on the Gth inst., stolen an overcoat valued at L4 12s 6d, the property of William Lewis. — Sergeant Macdoaell conducted the case for (he prosecution, and Mr Macalister appeared for the accused, who pleaded " Not Guilty. " — Michael Kane, draper's assistant, gave evidence to the effect that at nine o'clock on the morning of the Gth inst. he hung an overcoat outside the door of Mr Lewis' shop, Dee street. He saw it there ac four p.m., aud shortly after Mr Lewis drew his attention to the fact that the coat was gone. The coat produced was the one that witness hung up outside the shop. The ticket upon it bore the firni's-trade mark. — William Lewis aeposed that on Saturday afternoon when going out of his front door he saw a man walking past in the direction of Tay street, with an overcoat on his arm, and the ticket on it exposed. Witness made inquiries in the Bhop, and finding that an overcoat was missing, he went in search of the accused, whom he ultimately found in a room in the Royal Hotel. He was' shoving something into a bag, and witness called in Constable McDonough, who happened to be passiDg, and told him what had occurred. The constable went to a trap ill the yard, in which the accused had meanwhile put the bag, and the coat was found there, and afterwards identified by one of the shop assistants. Witness identified the . accused as the person whom he had seen walking away with the coat. He had noticed the man hanging about the place, and, not liking his appearance, had on one occasion ordered goods to be taken inside the shop. — At this stage Mr Mncalister said he understood there were two other charges against the accused, and that one of these — a sum of over L5 being involved — would have to go to the Supreme Court. He (counsel) had only been instructed a few minutes before the court opened, and after consultation with the accused the latter had decided to withdraw his plea of not guilty, admit the charge, and elect to be dealt with summarily. — Sergt. Macdonell said that there had been a series of larcenies from shops lately, and a good deal of the shop-lifting had been traced to the accused. The police now had from Ll7 to LlB worth of stolen property which had been found in the possession of the accused, against whom further charges would probably be preferred. His Worship sentenced the accused to the full term of six months' imprisonment with hard labour. A second charge of stealing a pair of trousers valued at LI 9s from William Lewis on the 16th May was withdrawn on the understanding that the property would be returned to the owner. — The accused was then further charged with having, between the 23rd and 30th May, stolen four tweed suits and one overcoat valued at LlO 7s 6d, the property of the New ' Zealand Clothing Factory. The hearing of the charge was adjourned till Thursday. ALLECJED CRUELTY TO A VIC. A small boy named Robert Jas. Meldrum was charged, under the Police Offences Act, with having on the 24th May ill treated % pig l>y chopping it with an axe. The information was laid by Jas. O'Niell, of Rimu, owner of the pig. Mr Wade appeared for the prosecution and Mr Macalister for the defeuce. The evidence showed that the pig had been injured while being driven by the boy out of his fat net's garden. — Mr Macalister said that the defendant had thrown the a.ve at the animal in order to chase it out of the garden, but even if he had destroyed it the 14th section of the Impounding Act gave power to destroy pigs, goats or poultry Found in a garden which was properly fenced. — Mr Wade replied that'this was not a civil action for damages, but a prosecution for cruelty to animals. — His Worship paid that there was no evidence that" the garden was not properly fenced, and in that case if a pig trespassed on the ground the defendant had a right to destroy it. He thought that section 7 of the Police Oifences Act was intended for cases of deliberate cruelty or cruelty through negligence, and not to meet a case like the one before the Court. The information would be dismissed, but without costs, because it was clear the animal had been injured by the defendant, though not through his deliberate act. ASSAULT. William Moffett was charged with having, on the 20th May, unlawfully assaulted Henry Ellis by knocking him down and striking him on the face and body. Mr Henderson appeared for the informant, and Mr Wade, with him Mr J. Moffett, for the defendant, who denied the charge. — It appeared, that the "police had laid an information agaiust Ellis and Moffett for a breach of the peace, and Mr Henderson contended that this should be taken first, — Sergeant Macdouell explained the action of the police in the matter. They found that a breach of the peace had beeu committed, and each party ] accused the other of being the aggressor. ] Una of them said he would lay an informaUoa igofrri th,a other tfee following morning 1

for assault, and he (the Sergeant) told him that if nothing was done the police would certainly take action. Next morning, finding that neither of them had taken action the police laid an information for breach of the peace against both of them. Ellis subsequently laid an information against Moffett, and perhaps the best plan would be for it to be heard first, and if he were successful the police^ information would be withdrawn. His Worship ruled that the charge against Moffett should be heard firat. — Mr Henderson, having outlined the facts of the cass, called Henry Ellis, who deposed that he was billiard-marker in the Supreme Court Hotel. While he was in Deschler's Hotel on the evening of the 20th ult., Moffett, Josb, and Peattie came in, and after remaining a few minutes Moffett and Joss went out and witness and Peattie followed. On getting outside, Moffett asked witness where be was going, and witness inquired — "What has that to do with you!" Moffett then remarked that witness was not coming with them, and witness replied that he was not going with them— that he was going to close his billiard room, and surely the road was wide enough for both. Moffetfc told him to give none of his cheek and after some further remarks Moffett struck him, knocking his pipe out of hi» mouth and sending him into the street. He rolled witness over in the mud. When witness got up he picked up a handful of mud and gravel and threw it at Moffett, who chased him up the street and caught him near the Police Station. He knocked witness down, got on top of him and threatened to choke him. Witness called for the police, and Moffett tried to get away, but witness clung to his leg, and said he would not let him go till the police came. He succeeded in freeing himself, and went off, and witness followed him. After going a short distance, Moffett got witness against & »hop, and saying " I will learn you to sing out police," "again assaulted him. The police then came on the scene. Witness wauted them to take Moffett in charge, and was told to come to the station next morning. He went between 11 and 12, and then found that an information had been laid against Moffett and himself for causing a disturbance in the street. He waa sober and gave Moffett no provocation. — Cross-ex-amined : Witness did not address the defendant familiarly as " Bill," and the latter did not turn round and say — " Mr Moffett, please." Witness did not jostle the defendant-, or try to force his company on him. — Evidence was also given by A. Cuff, Sergeant Macdonell, and Constable Green. The Sergeant stated that hearing a disturbance on the night in. question he proceeded to the scene and there found the complainant and defendant. They accused each other of having caused the disturbance. Constable Green stated that not knowing which of the two was the aggressor he advised them to go home pending further inquiries. — Mr Wade said that in reality the complainant was the aggressor, and called the defendant, who deposed that on entering the hotel where witness lived, with Josa and P«attie Ellis said— " Halloa, Bill." Witness did not take much notice of him, and soon after left with the other two. Ellis joined them and ranged himself Alongside of witness, who objected, and told him to go in front or behind. He hustled witness, who shouldered him off the footpath and walked on. Witness asked the others if they wanted Ellis, and they said they did not. Ellis, however, persisted in forcing himself on them, at the same time using most abusive language. Witness pushed him a second time and Ellii fell down. On rising he started to throwroad metal at witness. He then ran towards Ellis, who dropped down. Ellis came at them again with metal, and threw it at witness's head, after which he ran off in the direction of the Police station, and fell down before witness reached him-. Witness did not try to hurt him. He caught witness by the leg, and cried "murder!" and "police!" Witness told hiji if that was what he wanted he would wait for the police. He waited a abort time, and then rejoined the others. Ellis followed, and threw more stones at witness, who, to protect himself, caught Ellis and said he would hold him till the police came. Crossexamined : Witness' action was not unprovoked ; it was the other way about. He gave Ellis every chance to go away. Witness was not the worse of liquor. — C. Josa gave evidence to the effect that the defendant did not strike Ellis, who persisted in remaining with the party. After the occurrence near the police station Ellis followed Moffett up and threw stones at him. Moffett then caught and held him till the police came. Witness told Sergt. Macdonell that Ellis was the aggressor. This closed the case for the defence. -Sergt. Macdonell, recalled by Mr Henderson, stated that when Joss told the police about the affair he* only spoke up to a certain point, and said nothing of what happened after the alleged assault. He told witness about Ellis following the party, but would not go on when requested to do so. — To Mr Wade : People sometimes showed a good deal of reticence when speaking to the police about street rows. — His Worship said that notwithstanding the very conflicting evidence, he was satisfied that the disturbance, as stated by the defendant, was due to the informant seeking to push bis company on the others when he was not wanted. He persisted in nudging Moffett, and conduct of that kind was enough to make a man push off the footpath the jerson guilty of it. It was not right that a person should force Jiis company on another in this way, and the use of a certain amount of force was justified in getting rid of such an objectionable companion. The information was dismissed with costs (L3 14s) against the informant ; in default of distress, seven days' imprisonment. — Sergeant Macdonell said that the charge against Moffett and Ellis would be withdrawn.