Miscellaneous Information.

New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume XXI, Issue 11, 26 May 1897, Page 100

Miscellaneous Information.

Appointments as Constables Felix Robert Goullett, No. 798. Donald McLeod, No. 799. William McNeely, No. 800. Frederick Adolphus Waterman, No. 801. Charles Henry Pratt, No. 802.

Rewards. The Customs Department has awarded £1 to Detective W. Maddern, No. 471, and 10s. to Constable D. McKenzie, No. 772, for obtaining a conviction under the Beer Duty Act at Christchurch, on the 14th March last. (97/94.)

Sergeant J. Cullen, No. 194, and Constable J. Shearman, No. 534, Wanganui police, have been awarded £3 and £2 respectively for obtaining the conviction of Richard Underwood for sly-grog selling at Karioi on the 30th January last. (97/6/56.) Constable J. Mcllveney, No. 697, Auckland police, has been awarded £3 for arresting Joseph Cant, a deserter from H.M.S. “Mildura” at Sydney. (97/94.) The following amounts have been awarded in recognition of services in obtaining convictions against six Maoris and a European storekeeper for sly-grog selling at Kawhia: £5 each to Constables D. C. Fraser, No. 787, and J. H. Boreham, No. 782, Auckland police ; and £2 each to Constables J. W. Forbes, No. 118, Hamilton; G. A. Tapp, No. 409 Raglan ; and J. S. Morgan, Kawhia. (97/201).

The following decisions are published for general information :

Jones v. German (76 L.T. 136).

Search-warrant Sufficiency of Information —No Direct Allegation of Theft —Goods not specified.

Section 103 of the English Act, 24 and 25 Viet., c. 96, is practically the same as section 208 of “ The New Zealand Justices of the Peace Act, 1882.” The plaintiff Jones was a

butler in the employ of one Wood. Wood gave Jones notice to leave. Jones packed his boxes, and Wood asked to examine them. Jones refused to allow him to do so. Wood then went to the defendant, a Justice, laid an information, and obtained a search-warrant in the ordinary form, directed to a constable. The constable searched the boxes, found property belonging to Wood, and arrested Jones. Wood offered no evidence. Jones was discharged, and brought this action against German, the Justice, for issuing the warrant without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the information did not specify the goods and did not allege the goods were stolen. The information was that the informant “ hath just and reasonable cause to suspect and doth suspect that William Jones has in his possession certain property belonging to Thomas Wood, and upon his oath doth depose and say that the said William Jones has been in his employ five years, and is now under notice to quit, and that he has requested the said William Jones to allow him to search the boxes which the said William Jones has packed ready to be taken away, but which he refuses to be looked through.” It was held by the Court of Appeal that, although the information did not specify the goods or allege them to be stolen, the information showed that the Justice was called on to act judicially, and that, whilst the information might have been treated as irregular, as the Justice chose to act on it he had jurisdiction to issue the warrant, and the action against him was dismissed.

Bradford v. Dawson and Parker (76 L.T. 54).

Betting—Payments of Bets in a Publichouse—Bets made Elsewhere —“ Using House for Purpose of Betting with Persons resorting thereto ” —Knowingly “ permitting House

to be so used."

Parker kept a publichouse, and Dawson was a professional bookmaker. Dawson made an habitual practice of going to Parker’s house to pay debts which he had made elsewhere, and persons who had won bets from him made a practice of going to the house to collect the amount of their debts.

These practices were carried on with the consent of Dawson. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the payment of a debt made elsewhere was not “ betting,” and consequently the defendants could not be convicted.