LAW REPORT.

New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume XXX, Issue 30, 2 August 1905, Page 271

LAW REPORT.

The following decision is published for the general information of the Force :

Mcßobie v. Bowden. (“ New Zealand Law Reports,” Vol. xxiv., page 10.)

Licensing —“ The Licensing Act, 1881," Section 146 —“ Permitting Drunkenness on Licensed Premises." Appeal under section 236 of “ The Justices of the Peace Act, 1882,” from the decision of S. E. McCarthy, Esq., S.M., at Invercargill. The appellant is the licensee of the Shamrock Hotel, Invercargill. On the 25th of June, 1904, one Carr, after drinking at other hotels, came to the Shamrock in the evening, where he had a drink. He then left, but returned later, between 6 and 7 p.m., at which time he was slightly under the influence of liquor. He played two games of euchre, being supplied with a drink after each game by one Wilkinson, who, though not a regular servant of the appellant, with the appel. lant’s knowledge assisted in the management. From these facts the Magistrate found that Wilkinson had appellant’s authority to serve Carr. Carr left the hotel at 8 p.m., and was then drunk. He returned at about 9 p.m., and was seen coming from the direction of the bar into the parlour with two bottles of beer, but there was no evidence that he got these on the appellant’s premises. Carr asked for liquor, but was refused by the barmaid and Pasco (acting-barman). Carr used obscene language to the barmaid, who told him to leave the premises, but no effort was made by the men to eject him. Carr was found on the premises, quite drunk, by

the police at 9.20 p.m., and was arrested and subsequently convicted of drunkenness. The appellant was convicted of permitting drunkenness on his premises, and from this conviction the appellant now appealed.

1 Sim, for the appellant:— Hit is clear from the Magistrate’s finding that he convicted the appellant because of the last visit of the drunken person, and that because the licensee allowed the drunken person to remain on the premises he was guilty of “ permitting drunken- “ ness.” Edwards, J., decided the contrary in Faber v. Dwyer. The words of the section are “ permits drunkenness to take “ place.” The licensee did not do so here. Hope v. War burton. and Edmunds v. James, which may be quoted against the appellant, are distinguishable, as there the man was not only drunk but was found drinking. In Worth v. Brown the question decided was whether the knowledge of a barmaid could be considered the knowledge of a licensee. There the barmaid suffered the man to remain, but here the barmaid ordered him to get off the premises. She did not “ permit “ drunkenness.” In order to obtain a conviction it must be proved that there was knowledge or connivance on the part of the licensee or of some one with his authority : Somerset v. Hart ; Somerset v. Wade; Bond v. Evans ; Commissioners of Police v. Cartman ; Sherras v. Be Rutzen ; Ernary v. Nolloth. In the case of the second visit the Magistrate’s findings are not correct. The evidence shows there was no person present to whom the licensee’s authority was delegated, and so there is no liability. Somerset v. Wade has been followed in Poole v. Cooper. If necessary the case should be referred back to the Magistrate for amendment. T. iff. Macdonald, for the respondent:— The two visits of the drunken person must be treated together. [Williams, J.—Are they not severable ?] It is submitted they are not. [Williams, J.—lt seems from the case on appeal that the Magistrate’s judgment is founded on the final visit.] The finding of the Magistrate must be accepted: Musther v. Musther; Stone's Justices' Manual. There was evidence to justify the finding that the person who served the drinks on the second visit did so with the implied authority of the licensee. As to implied authority see Henry v. Felton. It is not necessary to prove that the person to whom such authority is delegated is a servant. With regard to the final visit, the English cases are conclusive that if a licensee allows a drunken person to remain on the premises he is liable for “permitting drunkenness”: Hope v. Warburton; Worth v. Brown. In Ex parte Ethelstane very slight evidence of drunkenness was held sufficient on which to convict. The mere fact that the barmaid ordered the man off is not sufficient. She should have got assistance and had him ejected. Sim in reply. Cur. adv. vult. Williams, J. : This is an appeal, under section 236 of “ The Justices of the Peace Act, 1882,” from a decision of the Stipendiary Magistrate at Invercargill, who convicted the appellant, a hotelkeeper, under section 146 of “ The Licensing Act, 1881,” of permitting drunkenness to take place on his premises. The question before the Court is therefore whether, from any view of the facts stated in the case, the conyiction can be sustained.

Section 146 corresponds with section 13 of the English Licensing Act of 1872 (35 & 36 Viet., c. 94). Three English cases have been decided on that part of the latter section which relates to a licensee permitting drunkenness on his premises: Edmunds v. James, decided in 1891 ; Hope v. Warburton, decided in 1892; and Worth v. Brown, decided in 1896. All these cases show this at least: that in order to bring a licensee within this section it is not necessary that a drunken man should have become or have been made drunk on the premises, nor is it necessary that there should have been an actual sale of liquor to the drunken man. It is suggested, however, that in order to bring the licensee within the section it must appear not only that the licensee or his representative knew the man was on the premises and was drunk and allowed him to remain there, but was also aware that while in that condition he was consuming drink on the premises, given him by some one or other, though not necessarily supplied by the licensee. I do not think the English cases bear out this suggestion. In Edmunds v. James a drunken man came into a publichouse, and whisky was sold to him by the licensee. The Justices convicted the licensee of permitting drunkenness to take place on the premises. It was contended that, though the licensee may have been liable under the latter part of the section for selling liquor to a drunken person, he could not be convicted of permitting drunkenness to take place on his premises. The contention was, of course, overruled. Mathew, J., says, “ In the present case a man “ came into a publichouse being already drunk, and was sup-

“ plied with liquor and made more drunk, and under these “ circumstances drunkenness was permitted on the premises.” A. L. Smith, J., says, “ The first part of the section is intended “to meet the case where there is no sale.” The facts in the above case make it so clear that from any point of view the licensee had permitted drunkenness to take place that the case is of little value except for the opinion of A. L. Smith, J., that no sale of liquor to the drunken person is required to bring the licensee within the first part of the section. Hope v. Warburton was a case where the Justices had refused to convict a licensee of permitting drunkenness to take place. The Justices stated a case for the opinion of the Court, and the question was whether the respondent by reason of the facts proved did permit drunkenness to take place. The Court (Day and Charles, JJ.) decided that he did. The question was not whether upon the facts stated the respondent could have been convicted, but whether he ought as a matter of law to have been convicted. The decision of the Court in effect was that upon the facts he ought as a matter of law to have been convicted. It is important, therefore, to consider what exactly the facts stated in the case were. The reports in the Law Journal and in the Justice of the Peace, are rather more full than in the Law Reports, and the facts are there stated as follows: “ Robert “ Reid, an Inspector of Police, visited the ‘ Forge Hammer ’ “ Inn, Workington, kept by the defendant (the respondent). “ On entering the bar he saw three or four men, all sober, “ sitting round a stove at one end of the room, with three pints “ and a glass before them, and two other men, named respec- “ tively David Douglas and James Douglas, who were brothers, “ standing at the counter at the other end of the room, each “ drinking out of a pint. David Douglas was drunk, and the “ Inspector told him so, adding that he was not fit to be on “ licensed premises. The man replied, ‘lf you say lam drunk “ ‘ I will go ; but I have not been served with any drink here.’ “He then left. The Inspector then went through the bar anp “ into the house, and saw Ernest Warburton (the defendant’s “ son) in the cellar. This person appeared to be in charge “ of the premises, and Inspector Reid told him he should not “ have served Douglas ; and the reply made was, ‘ I did not “ ‘ serve him with anything. I saw he was drunk when he “ ‘ came in, and I did not serve him.’ The Inspector there- “ upon asked whose the pint was that Douglas was drinking “ out of, and the reply obtained was, ‘ I don’t know. I did not “ ‘ serve him.’ The Inspector then said, ‘ You should have “ ‘ turned him out ’ ; and the defendant’s son answered, ‘ I “ ‘ don’t think I have any right to do so.’ When the Inspector “ entered the house there was no one serving behind the bar.” Now. from the above facts it would have been quite competent for the Magistrates to have inferred that Ernest Warburton, though he knew David Douglas had come in drunk, neither supplied him with drink nor permitted him to drink liquor given him by any one else, nor knew he was drinking. No one was serving in the bar, and Ernest Warburton was in the cellar. It was quite consistent with the facts that the liquor David Douglas was found drinking was given him by some irresponsible person during Ernest Warburton’s absence. Yet the Court held that the licensee as a matter of law ought to be convicted. It was admitted by the counsel for the respondent in the above case that it could not be successfully contended that there must be an actual sale to a drunken man, but it was contended that the facts stated in the case, though they might justify, did not necessitate, a conviction. The Court overruled this contention, and held that serving the man with drink was not material to the offence at all. In the course of the argument, as set out in 56 Justice of the Peact, at Page 329, Day, J., says, “ To permit drunkenness “is, I suppose, merely to permit a drunken man to be on the “ premises.” Charles, J., says, “ The licensed person need “ not have kept the drunken man on the premises.” The case of Worth v. Brown, commented on in 62 J.P., 658, decided in 1896, confirms this view. In that case also the Magistrate had refused to convict, and the case was remitted to him with a direction to convict. It follows, therefore, that upon the facts as stated the defendant ought, as a matter of law, to have been convicted. It appeared that a man was found by the police in the bar very drunk, and that he had come into the bar in that condition. There was no statement that he had been supplied with drink or had had any drink in the house. The defendant, the landlord, was absent, and the barmaid was in charge of the bar. The Court (Grantham and Collins, JJ.) held that the barmaid, by being placed in charge of the bar, was substituted for the licensee for the purposes of the Act; that she was not merely his agent for certain purposes only, but was his agent in the further sense of being his alter ego, and the licensee was liable for any misconduct of hers in the management of the business. It therefore became a mere question of fact whether or not she had knowingly allowed the man to remain on the premises. It was therefore assumed in that case that to permit a drunken man to remain on the premises was all that was necessary to constitute the offence of permitting drunkenness to take place—an

assumption, in my opinion, completely justified by the previous case of Hope v. Warburton. In the report in the Solicitors' Journal it is stated that in addition to the offence of permitting drunkenness to take place on the premises the licensee was also charged with having permitted a drunken man to remain on his premises. But there is no such offence under the English Acts as distinguished from the offence of permitting drunkenness to take place on the premises, and the comment on Worth v. Brown shows that the case was brought under section 13 of the English Licensing Act for permitting drunkenness to take place. The law as stated in Paterson's Licensing Acts is as follows: “ Where a drunken person “ is found on licensed premises, and is known to be so by “ the licence-holder, the latter is liable, though no drink “ may have been supplied by such licence-holder.” For this Hope v. Warburton is cited. Worth v. Brown shows that the knowledge of a person in charge in the absence of the licensee is the knowledge of the licensee. j§£l think the case of Faber v. Dwyer, decided by Edwards, J., if it means that in order to convict a licensee under this section it must appear either that he became drunk on the premises, or that, coming on to the premises drunk, he, to the knowledge of the licensee, consumed more liquor there, is directly contrary to the English cases. Worth v. Brown does not appear to have been referred to, and the statement in the judgment that in Hope v. Warburton the drunken person was allowed—that is, allowed by the landlord or his representative —to consume more drink on the premises is not a necessary inference from the facts of that case, nor was it the inference drawn by the Court, which directed a conviction. Drunkenness is a physical state or condition. Drunkenness takes place when the state of drunkenness exists. To permit a man in a state of drunkenness to remain on premises when he can reasonably be ejected from them is to permit drunkenness to take place on those premises. A drunken man on the premises is equally a nuisance to decent people who frequent a publichouse whether he has or has not beens upplied with liquor there, and it is the licensee’s duty, if he can, to abate the nuisance. I think, therefore, that for a licensed person to allow a drunken person to remain on the premises when he need not allow him to remain is to permit drunkenness to take place on the premises within the meaning of the statute. The case of a lodger coming home drunk is on a different footing. He has a right by contract to be on the premises. If he goes to bed he goes to his proper place. So, also, if a drunken man comes in seeking shelter from inclement

weather, and it would be inhuman to turn him out of doors, the landlord might well be excused for keeping him on the premises. It will be time enough to decide these questions when they arise. But where the landlord has no duty, contractual or moral, to allow a drunken man to remain on his premises, and does allow him to remain, I am satisfied upon the authorities that he is guilty of the offence of allowing drunkenness to take place on the premises. In the present case the licensee was absent from the premises, but the barmaid had a general authority from the defendant, and one John Pasco a limited authority to serve liquor and control the bar on behalf of the defendant, and Pasco at the request of the defendant assumed this limited authority. A man, Carr, came into the bar drunk about 9 o’clock in the evening. The persons in charge refused to supply him with drink, and he used filthy language. Notwithstanding the use of such language no attempt was made to eject Carr, the barmaid alone interfering, and her interference was confined to ordering Carr to leave the premises or she would have him ejected on the return of the defendant, who was absent, and who remained absent until after 10 o’clock. Carr was found drunk on the premises by the police about twenty minutes past 9. If the defendant had been present it would have been his duty not to have allowed Carr to remain on the premises, but to have put him out, and if he failed in this duty he would have been properly convicted. In his absence this duty devolved upon the barmaid, who, as in Worth v. Brown, was the defendant’s alter ego for this purpose. The question is whether there was evidence before the Magistrate from which he could conclude that she had failed in this duty. I think there was. She certainly told Carr to leave, but did nothing more, although he did not leave. Obviously, if it was her duty to have put him out, and there were reasonable means at hand for putting him out, merely telling him to leave is not a performance of that duty. But Pasco was there, and Wilkinson, the defendant’s father-in-law, who assisted generally in the hotel, was also there. Further, by section 153 of the Act of 1881 all constables are required to assist in expelling drunken people. I think, therefore, that there was evidence from which the Magistrate could properly conclude that the barmaid could have had Carr put out, but failed to have him put out, and allowed him to remain on the premises, and that the conviction must be affirmed.

Solicitor for the appellant: M. Gilfedder (Invercargill.) Solicitors for the respondent: T. M. Macdonald <k Son (Invercargill).

Name of Offender. Where tried. When. Offence. Sentence. Native of Trade. p O « 3 1 tp 1 l 1 Complexion. Hair. i Eves. Nose. Distinguishing Marks, Ac. Quinn, John Bull’s 24/6/05 theft oonvicted and Ireland labourer 1852 ft. in. 5 10 sallow .. grey grey .. medium Scar on right side of face; slim build. discharged Wilson, James Bull’s 24/6/05 obscene language fined £1 Scotland .. labourer 1857 5 5* fresh .. sandy blue short Gordon, William .. Bull’s 18/7/05 drunk and disorderly .. committing indecent aot fined £1 convicted and N. Zealand stableman .. 1885 5 9 fresh .. dark blue medium Has prominent mouth. discharged dark .. Robertson, Spencer Wellington .. 6/7/05 illegally on premises .. convicted and Scotland .. 1877 5 10 brown brown .. medium discharged Havelock, Richard Wellington .. 10/7/05 theft dismissed England .. commercial 1862 5 7 fresh .. brown brown .. medium traveller Phillips, Thomas .. Wellington .. 7/7/05 false pretences convioted and discharged ordered to pay £2 sent to BurnEngland .. sailor 1873 5 8i fresh .. fair blue medium Daly, Joseph Wellington .. 17/7/05 theft N. Zealand labourer 1887 5 3 fresh .. brown blue medium See Police Gazette , 1905, page 103. Sergent, Albert Wellington .. 21/7/05 theft N. Zealand carter 1889 4 11 fair brown hazel .. medium Ring on right middle finger ; anchor and pierced ham heart on left arm ; scar on left eyebrow. Smyth, Christopher Bernard Wellington .. 21/7/05 theft sent to St. N. Zealand 1890 4 11* fresh .. brown blue medium Two small scars on calf of right leg. Mary’s Industrial School Curry, John James Wellington .. 21/7/05 theft convicted and discharged to come up N. Zealand driver 1890 4 lii fresh .. auburn blue medium Scar on right kneecap; freckled face and hands. Gournan, Harold, alias Roberts, William Wellington .. 21/7/05 theft England .. steward 1887 5 8* fair fair blue medium when called on Stevens, William .. Wellington .. 17/7/05 rogue and vagabond .. to oome up when called on Australia .. packer 1883 5 8* fresh .. brown grey .. See Police Gazette, 1905, page 182. Surrell, Sarah, alias McGregor Wellington .. 18/7/05 theft to come up when called on Scotland .. charwoman 1851 5 3 fair brown grey .. medium See Police Gazette , 1899, page 181. Slattery, Albert Matthew .. Wellington .. 21/7/05 theft (2 charges) to come up England .. carpenter .. 1863 5 9* fresh .. thick brown, hazel .. large, when called on fresh .. turninggrey aquiline Taylor, Arthur Christchurch 18/7/05 theft inciting to resist police 6 mo’s probat’n convicted and England .. labourer 1877 5 6 brown grey .. medium discharged dark .. Johnston, Edward .. Christchurch 18/7/05 inciting to resist police fined £5 N. Zealand engineer 1875 5 5 dark grey .. medium Morrow, Thomas .. Christchurch 18/7/05 inciting to resist police fined 40s. N. Zealand printer 1888 5 8 fair fair grey .. medium O’Brien, John Christchurch 18/7/05 inciting to resist police fined £10 Ireland labourer 1865 5 4 dark .. dark brown .. medium Denham, Charles .. Christchurch 18/7/05 obscene language fined £5 N. Zealand labourer 1879 5 9 dark .. brown hazel .. medium assaulting police fined £5 Hazelhurst, Thomas Christchurch 18/7/05 assaulting police fined 40s. N. Zealand labourer 1885 5 7 fair fair blue medium McKellar, Archibald Campbell Timaru 24/7/05 theft to come up N. Zealand errand-boy.. 1888 5 1 fresh .. brown brown .. medium Defective sight. when called on Shea, Peter Dunedin 12/7/05 obscene language fined £10 America .. stevedore .. 1837 5 8 fresh .. grey blue broad See Police Gazette, 1895, page 117. Brown, Elizabeth .. Balclutha .. 20/7/05 theft convicted and N. Zealand servant 1888 5 6 very fresh black dk. blue medium Full, heavy face. discharged

Return of Persons summarily convicted at Magistrates’ Courts, but not sent to Gaol.

Oaol, and Nama of Prisoner. ; i Where tried. When. Offence. 1 Sentence. Native of Trade. Born. If a Complexion. Hair. Eyes. Nose. When discharged. Remarks, and Previous Convictions. (F.P. indicates that finger-impressions have been taken.) Auckland — ft. in. Clark, Charles, alias Frank Masters, alias Auckland 24/9/04 indecency 12 months England .. painter 1864 5 5 swarthy black hazel .. medium 17/7/05 8 p.c. F.P. Photographed at Wellington, 6/5/90. (See Police Gazette, 1900, page 285.) Smith, alias Pearce ,&c. Kirk,Alfred, alias Robert, alias “ Dufiy,” &c. Auckland 7/7/05 indecency 14 days N. Zealand labourer 1853 5 7 fresh .. dark brown, turning grey blue medium 20/7/05 24 p.c. (See Police Gazette , 1899, page 138.) Richards, Mary Auckland 22/4/05 habi tual drunkenness.. 3 months England .. prostitute .. 1855 5 2 florid .. fair, turning blue-gr’y medium 21/7/05 76 p.c. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 143.) Thornton, Georgina, alias Auckland 22/6/05 drunkenness .. 1 month N. Zealand cook 1864 5 2 fresh .. grey red blue-gr’y medium 21/7/05 6 p.c. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 226.) Annie Annear, William Auckland 22/6/05 vagrancy 1 month England .. bushman and cook fireman 1839 5 3 swarthy dark brown blue medium 21/7/05 30 p.c. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 77.) Read, Albert .. Auckland 24/6/05 theft fine, or 1 month England .. 1874 5 6* fresh .. dark brown hazel .. medium 22/7/05 Scar on forehead. F.P. Photographed at Auckland, 30/6/05. Haurangi Horam, alias Te Haurangi Auckland 24/6/05 theft (2 charges) 1 mo. on each N. Zealand labourer 1871 5 6| copper.. black dark br. fiat 22/7/05 3 p.c. Stout build ; large head and mouth. F.P. Photographed at Auckland, 30/6/05. Larsen, John .. Auckland 10/7/05 drunk and disorderly .. 14 days Sweden .. fireman 1880 5 7 pale fair brown .. thick 22/7/05 Yacht with sails on right forearm ; dot between left finger and thumb. Ford, Michael Auckland 17/7/05 obscene language fine, or 7 days England .. fireman 1880 5 5§ pale brown grey .. medium 18/7/05 A.B.A. and clasped hands, &c., on left forearm. F.P. Fine paid. Wood, George Henry .. Papakura 18/7/05 false pretence remanded N. S. Wales watchmaker 1853 5 3J fresh .. fair blue .. medium 21/7/05 Large scar on right forearm ; left arm contracted. Bailed. Napier — Hand holding a flower on left forearm ; scar on Donovan, Thomas Napier 4/7/05 threatening language .. 14 days Ireland fireman 1876 5 7| fair light brown blue broad 17/7/05 McNeilly, Hugh, alias McNelly, alias McNeill Napier 22/6/05 breach of Prisons Act .. 1 mouth Ireland labourer 1857 5 4J dark .. black brown .. thick 21/7/05 F.P. Protographed at Napier, 14/1/90. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 239.) Brown, John McConochie Dannevirke .. 23/6/05 theft (7 charges) 1 mo. on each Born at sea clerk 1875 5 Of fresh .. brown blue medium 22/7/05 F.P. Photographed at Napier, 6/7/97. (See Police Gazette, 1899, page 28.) New Plymouth— Scar on left forefinger; partly bald. F.P. Woodhead, William Wellington .. 4/4/03 theft of money (9 chgs) 3 years England .. clerk 1852 5 84 fair grey blue .. medium 19/7/05 Miller 1 p.c. Large discoloured scar on right shin; right ankle has been broken ; blotched face. Adams, Frederick George Hawera 14/4/05 default of maintenance 3 months England .. restaurantkeeper 1851 5 4 veryfresh white, bald.. blue .. pointed .. 17/7/05 Marshall, Edward Inglewood .. 17/7/05 breach of the peace 7 days N. Zealand labourer 1863 6 04 sallow .. sandy blue .. long 22/7/05 12 p.c. Right elbow has been broken ; fingers of right hand contracted. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1904, page 139.) Wanganui— 1 p.c. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1904, page 328.) Wilson, James, alias Wallace, David Marton 18/4/05 receiving 3 months Scotland .. labourer 1866 5 4 fresh .. sandy blue .. large 17/7/05 Previously convicted. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 55, as “ Pomfret,” where he is erroneously described as 5 ft. 54 in.) Eagle, James, alias Pomfret Marton 18/4/05 theft 3 months England .. gluemaker .. 1856 5 1 fresh .. dark brown brown .. small 17/7/05 Regan, Michael Palmerston N. 20/4/05 obscene language assault 3 months 1 month N. Zealand shoemaker 1876 5 64 dark .. black, ourly brown .. medium 19/7/05 4 p.c. Photographed at Auckland, 21/3/05. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 129.) Lewis, William Henry .. Feilding 4/7/05 cruelty 14 days N. Zealand labourer .. 1862 5 64 fresh .. grey grey . • pointed .. 17/7/05 Little left finger crooked.

RETURN OF PRISONERS REPORTED AS DISCHARGED FROM GAOLS DURING THE WEEK ENDED 22nd JULY, 1905.

1 QftoL, and Name of Prisoner. Where tried. When, j Offenoe. Sentame. | Native of Trade. s I If © Complexion. Hair. j Eyes, j Nose. When discharged. Remarks, and Previous Convictions. (F.P. indicates that finger-impressions have been taken.) Wellington — ft. in. Hare, Paul Peter Wellington .. 11/7/05 wife-desertion remanded Ireland currier 1867 5 6f fresh .. grey blue .. medium 17/7/05 Scar under left eye. Daly, Joseph .. Wellington .. 15/7/05 theft remanded N. Zealand labourer 1885 5 2f dark .. dark brown hazel .. medium 17/7/05 N.V. on left hand ; V. on left arm. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 103.) Aitken, James Barr Westport 8/2/05 default of maintenance 6 months Scotland .. miner 1857 5 4f dark .. dark brown brown .. medium 17/7/05 Right middle finger bent; bald. F.P. Mulcahey, Thomas Wellington .. 17/7/05 assault 7 days Ireland fireman 1869 5 10 dark .. dark brown brown .. small 17/7/05 Two flags on left arm. F.P. Bailed. {See Police 19/7/05 Gazette, 1904, page 186.) Howard, Charles Alfred Wellington .. indecent assault 12 mo. probat’n N. Zealand message-boy 1889 5 fresh .. dark brown brown .. medium 19/7/05 Scar on forehead. Kee Hum Palmerston N. 12/5/04 receiving 18 months China storekeeper 1862 5 7* olive .. black brown .. fiat 20/7/05 Scar left side of forehead ; thick lips. F.P. Prederickson, Aliok Wellington .. 22/4/05 obscene language 3 months Denmark .. fireman 1869 5 4 fair brown blue medium 21/7/05 1 p.c. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1904, page 340.) Humphries, William Masterton .. 15/7/05 indecent exposure 7 days England .. labourer 1852 5 fresh .. grey grey .. medium 21/7/05 Right little finger crooked. F.P. Edward Brinfield, Edward Wellington .. 12/5/05 default of maintenance 1 month England .. labourer 1874 5 3 fresh .. brown blue .. medium 22/7/05 2 p.c. F.P. Arrested 23rd June, 1905. (See ' Police Gazette, 1905, page 54.) McDowell, Joseph Wellington .. 24/4/05 theft 3 months Scotland .. fireman 1868 5 4 fair brown blue medium 22/7/05 3 p.c. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1904, page 127.) Smith, Charles, alias Wellington .. 17/7/05 drunkenness .. 7 days Germany .. seaman 1878 5 fair light brown blue medium 22/7/05 Clasped hands and two anchors on right arm ; William, alias Miller resisting police 7 days H.P. on left arm. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 88.) Hokitika— Taylor, Henry Hokitika 22/4/05 idle and disorderly 3 months England .. labourer 1855 5 9* dark black, turnbrown .. large 21/7/05 Several p.c. Scar across right cheek and under Lyttelton — sallow ing grey outer corner of left eye; crossed flags above heart on right arm. F.P. (See Police Gazette, N. Zealand 1904, page 341.) Kirk, William Christchurch 19/4/05 theft 3 months labourer 1872 5 6S dark .. brown brown .. medium 18/7/05 Numerous p.c. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 33.) Newman, Jane Christchurch 19/6/05 soliciting 1 month England .. prostitute .. 1874 5 0i dark fair blue medium 18/7/05 Numerous p.c. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1903, page 326.) Moore, Kate, alias WilChristchurch 20/6/05 obscene language 1 month Ireland prostitute .. 1863 5 6 fresh .. black grey .. medium 19/7/05 Numerous p.c. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1904. kinson page 297.) Burns, Edward Lyttelton 8/7/05 indecency 14 days N. Zealand fireman 1883 5 9f fresh .. fair hazel .. medium 21/7/05 Woman’s head on right arm ; left hand crushed ; mole on left cheek. F.P. Joyce, Mary, alias Jones Christchurch 23/6/03 obscene language 1 month Ireland prostitute .. 1867 5 3 dark .. black blue .. medium 22/7/05 Numerous p.c. F.P. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 88.) Dunedin - McDonald, William, alias j Dunedin 23/6/05 theft 1 month Ireland fireman 1870 5 fresh .. black It. grey broad 9/3/05 Top off right forefinger. F.P. (See Police GaConnolly, alias Smith, Edward zette, 1905, page 103.) Clyde— McGeorge, James (Dunedin 14/7/05 wife desertion remanded N. Zealand miner . 1869 5 6 fair fair blue .. medium 19/7/05 Stoops slightly when walking. (See Police Gazette, 1905, page 254.) Invercargill — Guinness, Arthur, alias Riverton 14/7/05 drunkenness .. fine, or 48 hours Scotland .. gardener .. 1837 5 5i pale grey light br. medium 15/7/05 See Police Gazette, 1904, page 222. Love, alias Hornsby, John *

RETURN OF PRISONERS REPORTED AS DISCHARGED FROM GAOLS DURING THE WEEK ENDED 22nd JULY, 1905 —continued.