POLICE COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 2, Issue 652, 24 December 1880, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

FEATHERSTON, MONDAY. [Before H, S. Waiidell, Esq., R.M, J. Drummond vH. Dudding.—Sheep rates, LI 4s. Paid into Court. Same v Thos. IVethey.-12s. Paid into Court, F. Thorner.y Duff.-£6 7s 4d. The claim was for the amount of a cheque given to defendant to be changed. The defendant stuck to the cheque as the plaintiff owod him money. 'The Court gave judgment against- the plaintiff,, at thesame time characterising- the conduct of the defendant as'.' sharp practice." CARTERTON, WEDNDSDAY. ■'/ (Before H. S. Wardell, R.M., and B. Boys . and W. Booth, J.P.'s, Ellon' Smith v James Irwin.—Debt £34 14s (jtiY -Mr Beard for plaintiff. J'udgnient'for amount and costs.' .' G. Kiddie & Co. v John Souper.—Debt 15s Cd. Judgment for'amount and costs. •.J. Drummond v John Reynolds.—, Shfeep rates-16s.- Paid into Court.. . MASTERTON, THURSDAY. A. D. Patterson vH. Lawler.—Assault. Fine 20a and costs, or 48 hours, . J. C. Ingram v G. Woodham,—Breach of Borough by-laws. Reprimanded Sergeant M'Ardle v Hans Hanson. —Drunkenness; Fined ss, or 24 hours imprisonment. John Drummond v P. W. Hadfield.— Sheep rates £2l2s. Paid into Court, Chamberlain Bros, v John Souper.— Debt £3133 Id, Judgment for amount and- coßts. - -' '

W. J. Nathan v Huru Te Hoare.Judgmpnt pummous £35 14s (jd, Order made,

Thomas Farrell was. phargpij. by Sergt, McCar'dle with larceny, Donald McDonald was at the Railway Hotel on Sunday last, Saw tho accused there, who took a pocket-book from a man named Brooks. A man named Harry Brand was also there, and another man named Thomas; Reading. Brooks was half asleep, with his head on the table.' The' accused took. the book from one of his pockets,' Witness went out and told a. woman whom ho supposed to be the landlady that something wrong was going oii, ■■■ The Court at this stage remanded the case, to secure tho attendance of' Brooks, tillTriday, the 31st iiißt,_ ."

H. Logan vS.Hudlett, Thomas Farrell, .Peter Cowan, and .James Taylor. The : defendants were charged with being illegally'on'the premises known as •the Gentlemen's Olub, Masterton, on the 18th inst., between the hours of one and two a.m. . - '," .'>■" .

Mr Skipper appeared for the defendants, • He objected to the wording of the information as too vague in description of the. premises. , • The Court said that the objection would bo ine.t by an/amendment of tho information.

. H. Logan 'deposed that he was custodian or .the Masterton -Club. On the morning in question he was reading in his own room tillTa.ii).'He then niust have goue to sleep for a few minutes. Abouta quarter past one he jyas woke up by the sound of footsteps in .the" passage.', Peter Oowan'then put liis head inside witness' room. Heaßkedhim'wh*at'he'ivanted, He said he wanted a drink.- Witness told him he had made a mistake, as he could not get one there. -Witness ..then went-.into -tho passage arid saw Taylor'stariding opposite, thobav door, Hullett was standing in the doorway; He saw Farrell between the gate and the doorway." ■ He asked Peter Cawan who the men were,' and .Cpwui roplied that they were his mates, and wanted a drink. Tliey all then left there, at witness' request. Witness 1 then went into the bar to exanjine the: liquor cash. He found—'" ".'"* .'""■ '■"':

■ Mr Skipper objected to any other charge being brought forward, The Court did not consider it necessary for witness to go further as. to tl>o result of Ills investigation of the'bar, Ho would .not, ; ,hpwever, bo justified in.entirely .stopping him... V ' Mr Skipper did not object to. the examination so far aB it went to bliow that an accusation.was made agaiiwt them, arid that on a search being made the money was not found on them. •, '■. Witness continued; He found that money had been removed from the till. " .. In answer to Mr Skipper: He knew Peter Cowan and Hullett-the latter was a fellow-servant of,his formerly at the Prince of Wales Hotel,, He saw- the money last, at'. 12,30. : Two gentlemen were in the Olub at the time'. He did not know when they went out, ;The Club was lit up.'. None of theiri attempted to rijn away. They wanted a drink before gbing lout. He;had no.'difficulty.in getting.rid ; of.them.;; He saw the accused afterwards: ■taking the money which wasmissing, and. "offered to Be ever, did'liot'• lead,:to- l'ecpyering•;;the. ;mbney..: ':'k amongst; ;!ftie inioney, fbr'£lj signed- by Mr Wyjlje.', ilf jhad'n'otbeeu "subsoqnehlly ibank, i; Two •onerpourid ,: notes itnisgihg;'• -He'itold thertf on : the following ;mofning; that vthey: : ■ had-; betterivpay vthe t t if t li go on Avith- tlie^ase;for; being: jlle.; j |alljftt][ the

tiphM; aggrieved:Bt^^;ncpMed^oraw^ ; j^tlie. premises,;: M '£>&i®i : : '■:. £f;S:l^:sfl4 ; .;• Mr ■■Skipper might:,be allowedi; : statement.- It'hadibeen ; shown;tha,t;tw£ :bf them hud been old custodian,:and; had'!a■valid ,the place jvas lit all working together on a fetation, "and; camelih to tbwn:togetheK ; ;(K!tfoughta repnmiuijl'would■meet'the*cm::;" , *;' ; '"' ] r :Tlie Court said.' the v ;a'ddress:ibf'AMr Skipper amounted; tbS 1 plea of guilty. ; ■ Mr Skipper admitted'that jt ; was bo' excepting on the point of lawful excuse.;'; ■■ ■ V Thel, Court, in (dealing with the" case, officially,'wished'tb entirely- put out of its', mind the fact* that .'money was missing at the time of the dofendants' visit.,; Still,, the Oourt could; not/ignore it;altbgethsr in.'.'apportioning the; sentence;' It. war clear that at at the time of the visit money, disappeared. - The charge, however,; was forbeing blithe premises without; lawful' excuse, and the .result was-tomake them to be considered as rogues and vagabonds and liable -to' twelve months'' imprisonment without the the option of a fine; It was important, that ■ the operation; of the statute should be understood bythe pub r lie, and it should be known:,that .-if any man during the hours of night was found on enclosed premises he was stigmatised by the law : as a'rogue and, a. vagabond,. He could understand that with a building; like the Club the act was somewhat a different one, and he would be more lenient than he would-be if the premies had been strictly a private residence. He would ask the.defendant.Parrel} what his real namewas ]— Was he ever known as Thomas Bell? '■',...■_.". Parrell: I would like to see. you privately afterwards on that question. Mr Skipper said two ,of the defendants were contractor who had contracts in hand. .

The Court felt more difficulty in dealing with the case than if only one man had been concerned, It would order each of them to be' imprisoned for 24 hours, by way of warning. .He asked defendant Parrell his namo, because Thomas' Bell, under which name iie had formerly gone, had more.than one conviction recorded against him..