Police Court

Southland Times, Issue 19048, 16 May 1903, Page 1 (Supplement)

Police Court

THURSDAY, 14th MAY

Beforo Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M

UNREGISTERED DOG

Mrs Jameson was charged on the information Of W. Anderaon, Borough Inspector of Gladstone, with keeping an unregistered dojr

The Inspector gave evidence in support of the charge. Ho had seen the dog at defendant's place several times, and had reason to believe that she owned it.

Mr "W. Maca lister, for the defendant, said that the Inspector had not inado proper enquiries about the dog. It had been at tho house as stated, but not continuously, and defendant's son had endeavoured unsuccessfully to get it to go back to its owner, Mr Uout. Tho Inspector had never spoken to her about the dog, though ho had an opportunity. Defendant gave evidence in support of this statement

His Worship read the portion of the Act relating to the ownership of (logs, nnd said thnt he could not decide that the defendant was keeping or harbouring it. <>f course the onus of proof lay on the defendant. but the inspector should make some enquiries before summonsing in Mich a case. The information was dismissed, no costs being allowed, as there were some grounds for the prosecutor's cuse.

PROHIBITION

A prohibition order was issued against James Tree week.

AI.LEtiKI) HOUSE-STEALING

Nicholas Nichols, on remand for horsestraling. was further remanded to Otautau. to appear on the U2nd. ILKCALLY ON LICENSED ITIEMISES

John Harper [.leaded " Mot Guilty " to boing on licensed premises during the currency of a prohibition order.— Mr Macalister defended.

Detective Mcllveney gave" evidence that he saw accused on the 28th April in the Shamrock Hotel. He was standing with his bv\c" to the bar, near tho slide, and witness was quite closo to him. I>i<l not know at the time that the order was in force against accused. Had no doubt whatever that the man he sawwas accused. To Mr Macalister : There were two other men with accused, and witness know one of them. Could sco accused for two or three minutes, and noticed that lie wus rather dismayed to see witness. Found out when he returned to the police station that accused was still prohibited.

Mr Macalister said that his instructions were of ihp most positivo charnctor that on tho night in question tho accused was not in the Shamrock hotel, lie had seen one ot' the young men, named Arthur Wesney, who would swear that accused was not in the hotel. Tho barmaid, Miss Lynch, who was present, was also positive that the accused was not in the hotel It was peculiar that the detective did not at once notice the accused, as he hud been in court in connection with another case just the week previous. It was possible that accused had been mistaken for someone else.

Mr Mucalister called Arthur Wesney, but there was no response. Tho witness had been subpoenaed, hut no expenses tendered. Mr Macalister said that he had been in the court that morning, and he asked that the case stand over for a short time. — Inspector Mitchell objocted to any adjournment, and suggested that counsel should call his othor witnesses.

A. Mcriobio. licensee, and Nelly Lynch, barmaid, gave names of several young men who were in the hotel on the night in question. Miss Lynch was positivp that- the accused was not in the place indicated by the detective and was not in company with Wesney and the others.

To Inspector Mitchell : Wesney and the others were at the hotel frequently, nnd the detective passed through nightly. Could not tell the day of the vrcek or dnte when tho alleged oflenco was committed. After a long cross-examination the witness said that she would not swear tli.it accused was not there, i>ut that as far as. she knew ho was not.

Tho witness Arthur Wesney, now being in attendance, gave evidence that on the ni^l't in question tho accused was not there —To Inspector Mitchell : Sergeant IJowden saw witness next morning and asked him about the case. There might have been a third person in the recess without witness nnd his companion

knowing it

Mr Macalister then announced that though his instructions were positive tho evideuce was of such a negative- character that he would not call the accused.

A conviction was recorded, and a fine of £5 and costs impoKcd. One month was allowed in which to pay the fine.