CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 3801, 21 June 1880, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

'This Day, (Before G. Xealio Lee, J. E. Psn2ter,.ea£ E. Wastenra, Esqs.) Dbttnkbswhss.— - Isabella Leckie, who ilifid ■neglected to .use the order given her for admission to the Eef ygo, was charged with being drunk and disorderly^t Addington. Accused denied that ahc .was drunk. The evidence was to the effect that tihe constable .ordered. Mr Jlausmann ifco ; turc accused out >af the hotd. She nowaaid.ehe was willing to go] bach to the Befuge, but was at once told j thatrfche opportunity would not be given her. ; She was committed for three months, under ; the previsions of the Vagrant Act.—Alexander Meharry was charged with being drunk, and also with using obececo language, lie -offences occurring as Saturday evening an Tuam street. Fined JOs.— {Eko first offendew w»re fined 5s each. M&vy Mitchell wae finod ss. Njbglkgebd. — William Ralph, on remand from Juno 14, was again brought up as a neglected child. Ho further information had been received respecting the lad, and the required order from His Excellency the Governor had not arrived. The lad was remanded for seven days, to be brought up sooner if necessary. DIBOBBTINa Air Obdeb. — Henry Donkin, on remand from June 11, was charged .with disobeying an order of 1 .(. . i /reused did not appear when .}.>■■■ "* ) r- <i-fcd previously been brough :; ■■ *> ■:' '■ '■. \ !•*•.« the case was remanded to give h'v : i. o] portunity for making an interim payment. The caao Tva«» further adjourned, accused to be again arrested. JJAHCENY. — Mary Kelly was charged with tho larceny from a shop of a jacket, valued at 30i, the property of Oharlcs D. Innis. Accused pleaded that |he had ft drop of drink

in her, and did not know what she was doing, She was willing to pay a fine. From the evidence it appeared that complainant was informed by a little girl that accused had removed tho jacket from outside the shop door, where it was hanging up. He followed her, and fonnd the article in her possession. The husband of accused — a respectable tradesman —said that unfortunately his wife had been drinking, and did not know what she was doing. The Bench commented Beverely upon tho practice of hanging goods outside Bhop doors ; in .their experience it was always drunken people who got into trouble through this custom. They would, taking all the circumstances into consideration, dismiss tho case. The Bench a second time drew attention to the practice of exposing goods as followed by various tradesmen in this city as being a most reprehensible one. Bbbakino into and Stealing. — Richard Wood, on remand from June 16, was charged with breaking into the shop of Berry Cass, and stealing therefrom a muffler and pair of braces, valued at 4s Id. Prisoner was also charged with breaking into the premises of : Messrs Hallenstein Bros., and stealing therefrom £5 19s lOd in money, and also articles of clothing, &c, representing a total value of £291557 d. The latter charge was, at the request of Sub-Inspector O'Donnell, taken first. William Jones deposed that he was a porter employed at the New Zealand Clothing Manufactory (Hallenstein Bros.), Cashel street. Hemembered the morning of June 14, when he went to open the shop at eight o'clock. • The ou f side door leading to the right-of-way would be tolted and padlocked, and the back door, opening into a lean-to, would be secured by an ordinary lock and a brass padlock as well. Witness entered by the right-of-way door, and found the fastenings the same as usual. The next door, leading into the shop from the right-of-way, which had been secured both by a lock and a padlock, witness found to have been forced open. He found the bolt of the padlock had been forced back as if with a chisel, the ordinary lock being fastened as usual. Noticed marks on the bras 3 padlock, where it had been forced open. There was a double mark, which witness thought might have been done with a broken chißel (lock produced and identified). Comparing the marks 'on the lock with the chisel now produced, would say that the implement would produce them, notches in the chisel comparing with the marks on the lock. The same day witness said that the safe had marks upon it, as if done with the view of wrenching it open, and with the same instrument. . These marks were on some brass caps on the front. Examined the building by going on the roof, and saw scratches on the zinc, as if caused by boot nails. There was a book window in the upstair building, and it could be opened from the roof, there being no catch on it. Saw footprints leading directly over the roof to the window— the roof is of corrugated iron. Could tell by things being disturbed on the inside that an entry had been effected by the window. The person so entering would be in !he front part of the building upstairs. Witness went up from the inside. The goods by the window were chiefly in the hosiery line, and anjone could get down by the shelving fixtures. There is no ladder from the upper room. Did not know the prisoner. Saw several half-burned wax matches strewed about the floor upstairs. Had been there about a quarter to 10 o'clock on the previous Saturday evening, just before leaving the premises, and waß positive the matches were not there then, and that the goods were not disarranged. To the Bench : Did not see any mark atnut the ordinary lock of the door first referred to. George Kelly, manager for Hallenstein Bros., at the Christchurch retail branch, deposed that I c personally locked the outer doors of the shop on Saturday night. When the shutters are up there is only one door entrance. On the Monday morning, the attention of witness having been called to an attempted entrance, he found recent marks on the safe, near the keyhole, as if caused by the chisel produced. Witness then described how the roof could be reached from the outeido; without any great difficulty, the back portion of the building being of only one storey. The window referred to really opens into the top of tho shop, and a person getting in would have nowhere to stand but on the shelving fixtures. Portions of paper being torn away from the coverings of goods, showed that some person had come down by the shelves. Witness found that several suits had been taken out from the shelves and replaced roughly, a? if by a person knowing nothing of the business." Did not at the time miss any goods, and from the quantify in the shop, a number of articles might have been taken away without notice, Could not even now, of his own knowledge, say what articles were missing from the stock, but had missed money. Had eTamined some goods at the police dep6t. Could not enumerate them, there were too many. (Goods produced.) These goods bore the mark nf the New Zealand Clothing Factory. Witness could not. say these oarticular things had not been sold in the shop. Personally, he had not sold any of them. Nearly the whole of them witness could identify as having formed part of the stook, and as bearing the Company's mark. Would estimate the aggregate value of tho articles at from £30, about. Witness then enumerated certain articles which he could say had not been sold to any persoD. Percy Withers, cashier at Messrs Hallenstein's, deposed that he left £5 19s lOd in the drawer on Saturday night, in silver in I coppers ; that amount should have been there, supposing the money received by witness for change to have been correct. Mr Kelly had counted the money a few minutes previously. MrKelly, re-called, confirmed this evidence. The cashier gave further evidence, to the effect that on the Monday morning he unlocked the deßk and found no money. Noticed that the drawer had been tampered with, and that a portion of the inside was broken and had been fixed in again. (Till produced.) James Pratt, a labourer, working in Hagley Park, deposed to having on Thursday last, while cutting willows for the Board of Conservators, seen a bag lying underneath a spruce fir tree, just by the bathing place, a chain and a half from the river. He saw -that it contained some clothing, and informed ;Mr Armstrong. Subsequently handed the bag to Detective O'Connor. Saw a dirty striped shirt and an old hat near the same place, and also a paper parcel under another fir tree about three or four yards avraj\ Did not think either of the parcels could have been there on the previous day without witness seeing them. Detective O'Connor produced the articles received from the last witness, and also a pair of old trousers. The articles found in the bag were those which had been enumerated and identified by Mr Kelly. Benjamin Howse, a board-ing-house keeper residing in Hereford street, deposed that accused had been boarding with :him Ifor some time — two months. Could identify a portion of the old wearing apparel now iproduced as having been worn by accused. Was quite certain as to the hat. Would. not be positive as to the shirt, but prisonor had one like it. He had not been to the boarding-house sinae April 3. Constable Leahy deposed that while examining the Provincial Government buildings, he found a valise and certain articles produced, two shirts and a singlet by one of the closets. He tried to enter the closet, and found that the door was fastened. On -going into the adjoining closet and looking over the partition, Faw prisoner lying on the-seat, with tho blankets produced rolled round him. He wa3 wearing the overcoat produced. Called on him to get up and leave the closet, and he made no reply. After some delay ho complied, running into Armagh street and thence into Durha.m street, witness catching ihita opposite the District Court door. It was while witness was trying -to grasp accused from over the partition that »he rushed out. Attto police station found <on prisoner the.cold.ckisel and the bottles of hair oil and pomade* now produced. In one of his pockets he had the two scarves < .produced, and l£d only in money. The wit- ; ness gave further evidence as to finding vaifisus articles >vkere prisoner had been sleeping. Prisoner, when .first told that he was suspected of etctting .(jfcc articles, made bo reply, but a fow minutes afterwards he said 'that he had bought them at tho New Zealand Clothing Factory. Witness further deposed that he had compared the notches on the initial with the marks on the safe, and found 'tsh&t they corresponded. Hud also compared the boots with a footprint on the premises of Mr B. Cass, adoining the Clothing Factory. (Boots produced.) Prisoner was committed for trial at; the next criminal session of the Supremo Court. The second chargo, which he admitted^ the Bench regarded aa .one of simple larceny, and dismissed. At tbis stage, the Court adjourned for half an hour. Bubachbs op the Ppjiiric-iiorrsE Ordinance — Kdwin Cookson, licensee of the Commercial Hotel, was charged with keeping his hou.ee open during prohibited hours on May

26. Mr Thomas appeared for accused, and denied the offence. Sub-Inspector O'Donnell eaid that this case arose out of evidence given in the Court. Every possible seaich had since been made for these witnesses, but the summorses could not be served. Case dismissed. — Joseph Oram Sheppard, licensee of the White Hart Hotel, was charged with permitting gambling, with selling liquor on the Sunday, and with obstructing Sergt. Hughes. Mr Thomas appeared for aooused. and denied the offences. The third offence he was prepared to admit, inasmuch as a servant of the defendant offered an obstruction, and the defence in the other caees was that the accused had no knowledge whatever of the circumBtancea. Sergeant Hughes deposed that at 3.30 on Sunday morning he heard the rattle of dice, and on looking though a Venetian blind, saw four men gambling with dice, the bar being lit up, and the barman being engaged in washing glasses. When witness applied for admittance, he was kept at the door some time, and on getting in he found the four men endeavouring to conceal themselves in the yard at the rear. The four men gavo their names as Scully, Collins, Murray, and Chambers. To Mr Thomas : The licensee was not present. The barman referred to was acting as night porter. Mr Thomas would at once admit the whole of the facts A3 stated. J. O. Sheppard deposed that the house was duly closed at 11 p.m., and that the man referred to had been given positive instructions never to allow dicethrowing in the house. M'Kenna, the night porter, deposed that he had on the night in question to see to cleaning the bar, and that he let in the four men without orders. He also said he had been instructed never to allow gambling in the place, that the men were personal friends of his, and that Mr Sheppard had no knowledge of the fact that the men were in the house. Mr Thomas then addressed the Bench with the view of showing— by English precedents — that the master ought not to be held liable where a servant acted in direct contradiction of hie ordera. Tho cases quoted by Mr Thomas were from Wharton's Law of Innkeepers. He submitted that his argument was strengthened in connection with the present case 3, by the fact that this man was a night porter and not a barman, and that he was therefore going completely outside his authority. Sub-Inspector O'Donnell said there was evidence that this man acted in the capacity of barman as well. M'Kenna, recalled, said he could get at beer, but not at spirits, which were all locked up at 11 o'clock. Mr Thomas, in resuming his address, wanted to show that personally the licensee was perfectly innocent in the matter, for the reason that his license might be affected, and that a servant might, to spite his master, imperil his license. The night porter recalled, said there might be pepnermint and such like, but no brandy and such things. He was behind the bar. J. O. Sheppard, on being sworn, described the position of the bar. Underneath, the counter there were cupboards, with locks and keys, and every night the barmaid locked up the spirits. The night porter, if any spirit should be wanted, would have to apply to witness or to his brother. Mr Thomas then further addressed the Bench, contending that persons concerned in the management of the hotel must have knowledge of the circumstances to be responsible. At this stage Sub-Inspector O'Donnell thought it would be advisable to call the other witnesaess, to show what drinks were served. Mr Thomas contended that there was no charge of selling liquor at a'l. The Bench pointed out to Mr Thomas, that the fact of bar being open and men gambling therein, mitjht in itself be held to constitute gross negligence. With regard to the 'offence of obstructing ■ the police, Mr Thomas addressed the Bench specially, contending tbat this was in the eye of the law a " personal " offence, done on the part of the servant, and that the maste* 1 could not by any reasoning be held responsible for that offence. The person who did the wrong, and not the owner of the house, was responsible for that •offence. Tho Bench, would be quite with Mr Thomas on that point. In reply to the Bench, Mr Sheppard said that the rightporter had not been discharged. He had been with Mr Sheppard for a number of years, and had been found trustworthy ; and witness had -told him that he would have to pay the amount of fine. The case of obstruction was dismissed. — In the other cases they held that there must be a dismissal, but that the man who bad committed tho offences ought not again to be left in charge of the house. Mr Thomas said care would be taken that there was no repetition. Miscellaneous. — Alfred Ashman, for permitting a horse to wander, was fined ss, and costs 2s. — A case against B. Taaffe was atjourned until June 28. — Charles Cresswell, for riding on the footpath on the Papanui road, and driving a mob of horses thereon, was fined 10s, and costs 2s. — William Shepherd was charged with having on June 12 furiously ridden along the Ferry road, the offence being proved by a constable and by an independent witness. Accused, who did not appear, was fined 10i and costs, and ordered to pay expenses of a witness, 6s. — The Rev John Crewes, charged with obstructing Philip street, Philipstown, by having a horse tied to a fence, the animal being on the footpath, was fined 10a, and costs 2s. — Nicolas Columbus, for obstructing Cashel street, by leaving a horse standing, was fined 10s, and costs 2s. — Mary Agnes Bennett was fined 20a as being the owner of an unregistered dog above the age of three months. [Left sitting.]