LAW REPORTS.

New Zealand Police Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 10, 18 March 1914, Page 172

LAW REPORTS.

(“ Times Law Reports,” Yol. xxx, page 187.) [Court of Criminal Appeal.—(lsaacs, C.J., Bray and Lush, JJ.) —Bth December, 1913.] Rex v. Barron. Criminal Law—Evidence as to previous G 1 Large — Admissibility. On a criminal prosecution evidence as to a previous charge on which the prisoner has not yet been tried is inadmissible. This was an appeal against a conviction. Mr. Blake Odgers appeared for the appellant and Mr. dn Parco[ appeared for the Crown. The appellant was tried at Winchester Assizes on a charge of an unnatural offence with a boy, and on conviction was sentenced to five years’ penal servitude. It appeared that the offence in question was committed on 18th July, and that the appellant had been charged with a previous offence alleged to have been committed on 6th June with the same boy. As to that earlier offence the appellant had not yet been tried, but was out on bail. During the trial evidence was admitted as to that earlier charge to rebut a defence of innocent association, and the appellant now contended that it had been improperly admitted and that the conviction should therefore be quashed. The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said that at the trial medical evidence was given as to the condition of the boy, both after 6th June and after 18th July, but nothing was said by the doctor to indicate that the prisoner was a person who had been suspected or charged with regard to the offence in June. Up to that point there was nothing to object to; but subsequently evidence as to that earlier charge was admitted to meet the defence of innocent association which had been put forward by the prisoner. As he had not been tried on that earlier charge it must be assumed that he was innocent of it, yet this evidence about it was unfortunately admitted, and the prosecution argued that it was admissible on the ground that it was material to the defence of innocent association. If the prisoner was, in fact, as must be assumed, innocent of the offence on 6bh June, the evidence threw no light on the occurrence of 18th July and no light on the question of innocent association. If it could have been assumed that the prisoner was guilty of the June offence the evidence would have been material; but they were clearly of opinion that it was inadmissible. The only charge at the trial was that of 18th July. It was contended that if it were shown that the prisoner was the man who had been previously charged with an offence with the same boy that would be material to the events of 18th July. But on the assumption that the prisoner was innocent of the former charge the utmost that could be said was that it was imprudent of him to go with the boy on 18th July. The Court was of opinion that the evidence should not have been admitted. It was true that the jury were directed to assume the prisoner’s innocence of the June offence, but they could nob feel sure that the jury had cleared their minds of the point and did not retain some lingering doubt in consequence of it; and as it was not clear to the Court that if the statement had not been made the jury must have come to the same conclusion, the conviction must be quashed. [Solicitors The Registrar; the Director of Public Prosecutions.]

(“ Times Law Reports,” Vol. xxx, page 194.) [Court of Criminal Appeal.—(lsaacs, C.J., Channell, Bray, Avory, and Lush, JJ.)— lsth December, 1913.] Rex v. Shellaker. Criminal Law — Evidence —Carnal Knoivledge—Similar Acts —Lapse of more than Six Months — Admissibility — Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 (48 and 49 Viet., c. 69), s. 5 (1). On a prosecution under section 5 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, as amended by section 27 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, for having unlawful carnal connection with a girl over thirteen and under sixteen years of age, evidence of the prisoner’s earlier illicit relations with the girl is admissible although such relations have continued for more than six months before the prosecution was commenced, and although such evidence discloses other offences on the part of the prisoner. This was an appeal from a conviction at Leicester Assizes on a trial before Mr. Justice Rowlatt for having unlawful carnal connection with a girl under the age of sixteen years. The appellant was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment in the second division.

The case was first argued on Bfch December before the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Bray, and Mr. Justice Lush. It was then adjourned that it might be argued before a Bench of five Judges. Sir Ryland Adkins appeared for the appellant, Mr. McCurdy for the Crown. Sir Ryland Adkins said that there bad been a similar charge against a man called Denton with regard to the girl before the same jury. No evidence was offered against him by the Crown, and he was acquitted. On the trial of the appellant evidence was given by the girl that the appellant had had connection with her in December, 1912 —that was, within the statutory limitation of six months. There was no evidence corroborating that of the girl except, perhaps, a remark of the appellant made on bis arrest, and that with regard to Denton, which was under consideration. Denton had left the neighbourhood where the girl lived on sch November, 1912. Evidence was tendered of the appellant’s having offered Denton a bribe to leave the country and take the guilt upon himself, and ocher matters which went to prove that the appellant and the girl had had guilty relations with each other before sth November, 1912—that was, more than six months before the prosecution was launched. That evidence, although objected to, was admitted. The evidence he (counsel) contended was inadmissible, first, on the broad general ground that it was not relevant and tended to show that the appellant had bean guilty of offences other than that with which he was charged in the indictment. Further, on the indictment the evidence was inadmissible, as by the terms of the statute under which the appellant was charged a prosecution could not be launched more than six months after the commission of the offence. If the decision of Mr. Justice Rowlatt stood, evidence of offences before the statutory period of six months could be given. Counsel for the Crown was not called on to argue. The Lord Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the Court, said: In this case the appellant was convicted of having had unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of sixteen. The appeal is grounded, in the main at any rate, on the fact that evidence was admitted to corroborate the girl’s story as to what had taken place between the appellant and Denton, which, it is said, showed previous guilty relations between the appellant and the girl. This evidence, it is said, ought not to have been admitted, because it would disclose or might disclose the fact that previous offences had taken place between the appellant and the girl before the six months’ limitation. Therefore it was said that the appellant was entitled to have that evidence excluded. The argument was put in two ways —first, it was said that the evidence was inadmissible on the broad principle that to admit this evidence would be to admit evidence to show that the appellant was a man of an evil disposition. It was said this could not be admitted as throwing any light on the offence with which he was then charged. And it was said that if the evidence with regard to Denton was admitted the effect of its admission would be to show that an offence had been committed by the appellant before the period of six months’ limitation, that being an offence with which the appellant could not then have been charged, so that, in effect, it let in evidence of a particular offence contrary to the general principles of evidence. With regard to this ground of appeal, we are all of opinion that this evidence was admissible —that is to say, dealing with the general proposition, apart from the specific provision in this statute as to limitation. We think the evidence is admissible on the well-known principle to which reference has been made, which was laid down in the case of Rex v. Ball (27 The Times L.R. 162 ; [l9ll] A.G. 47) in the House of Lords, though I agree that the facts in that case were somewhat special. But the House of Lords there did not lay down any new principle of law. They merely applied the principle to the facts of that particular case. The principle had been laid down in a series of authorities of whioh the case of Reg. v. Ollis (16 The Times L.R. 477 ; [l9oo] 2 Q.B. 758) was one in which the Court for Crown Cases Reserved by a large majority of Judges held that the evidence in question in that case was admissible. I will read the words of my brother Mr. Justice Channell, where he speaks of the real principle on which this question rests. On page 781 of the case in the Law Reports he is reported as saying, “Such evidence is admitted, not because it tends to show that the other offences have been committed, but notwithstanding that in the particular case it may happen to do so.” It is easy, no doubt, to cite other cases which show the application of this general principle, but it is sufficient to cite these two cases. No doubt there may be cases where its application may seem to be prejudicial, but in such a case the Judge presiding at the trial will decide whether it ought to be admitted. There are cases where the evidence it is sought to admit appears to be relevent, yet it is so remote that the Judge ought to say that it ought not to be admitted. One cannot further de-

scribe such cases unless all their facts were in evidence before us. This case we think comes within the broad principle which has been laid down in the two cases to which I have referred.

Then there is the further argument that this evidence was wrongly admitted because of this provision in section 5 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, as it has bsen amended by section 27 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904 (4 Ed, VII, c. 5), by which it is provided that no prosecution can be commenced under subsection (1) of the section more than three, now six, months after the commission of the offence. The learned counsel for the appellant says that the provision makes the evidence inadmissible, because its effect was to show that an offence was in fact committed before the commencement of the period of six months. This argument is advanced on the assumption that the broad principle we have laid down is correct. We do not think that the provision in this statute affects the admissibility of this evidence. The statute does not say so ; it merely says that no prosecution shall be launched after the expiration of the specified period. Take the case put by my brother Avory in the course of the argument. Suppose a letter had been written by the appellant nine months before the offenoe had been committed which showed that something in the nature of an amatory passion existed between these two persons. Such a letter, it is plain, is admissible on the broad general principle that I have laid down. And it does not cease to be admissible because of the existence of this limitation in the statute for bringing a prosecution. If Denton had been called and had said that he had seen these two persons or had heard them in circumstances which showed that something was taking place in the nature of amatory passion the evidence would be admissible, it is clear, on the principle we have laid down. And it would not cease to be admissible because it showed that the actual offence aimed at by this section was taking place. When we come to analyse the argument step by step it is clear that this evidence was admissible when given in respect of an actual offence that had been committed before the beginning of the limitation period of six months.

We ought to say with regard to Reg. v. Beighton (18 Gox G.C. 535), which was a decision of Baron Pollock, that so far as that case contains anything contrary to the principle that the Court has laid down it must be taken as being overruled.

The appeal was dismissed. [Solicitors: Messrs. Owston, Dickinson, Simpson, and Begg; the Director of Public Prosecutions.]

(“ Times Law Reports,” Vol. xxx, page 196.) [Court ob Criminal Appeal.—(lsaacs, C.J., Bray and Lush, JJ.)— lsth December, 1913.] Rex v. Murray. Criminal Law Children Unsworn Evidence Requirements of Corroboration Direction to Jury Children Act, 1908 (8 Edw. VII, c. 67) s. 30 (a). Where on a criminal prosecution the prosecutrix is a child of tender years, and evidence is given by her under section 30 of the Children Act, 1908, without being sworn, the Judge ought to point out to the jury that they must not act on the evidence of the child unless it is corroborated. In this case the prisoner appealed against a conviction for indecent assault. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Rowlatt at the last Derby Assizes. Mr. E. P. S. Counsel appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Man-hall Freeman for the Crown. The prosecutrix was a child, aged 5| years, who gave evidence at the trial under the provisions of the Children Act, 1908, section 30, without being sworn. Certain evidence was given by other witnesses in corroboration of the prosecutrix’s story. Mr. Counsel, on behalf of the appellant, contended that the conviction ought to be quashed on the ground that the learned Judge omitted to point out to the jury in his summing-up that the prisoner could not be convicted on the unsworn testimony of the child unless her evidence was corroborated, as provided by section 30 (a) of the Children Act, 1908.

Mr. Marshall Freeman, on behalf of the Crown, submitted that if there was in fact some corroborative evidence it was not essential that the Judge should specially direct the attention of the jury to the provision of the Act. The Lord Chief Justice, in delivering the judgment of the Court, said that the question was whether the learned Judge at the time had misdirected the jury with reference to the child’s evidence. What the learned Judge said was as follows : “ The evidence is all what we call circumstantial evidenoe in law, except the evidence of the little girl, which

is quite specific. It must be accepted with very great caution, but it is evidence which has circumstantial evidence to corroborate it in the circumstances to which I have drawn your attention. There it is.” It had been urged that the learned Judge ought to have drawn the jury’s attention to the statute. The Court certainly thought that that was a direction which should be given in such cases to the jury, and that it ought to be pointed out to the jury that they must not act on the evidence of the child alone, but that there must be corroboration before they are entitled to regard the child’s evidence at all. If the Court had come to the conclusion that the jury had acted on the child’s evidence alone the conviction would have been quashed, but having regard to all the evidence given it was unbelievable that the jury, without considering any of the corroborative evidence, would have acted on the statement of a little girl of that age. For these reasons the Court were of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. [Solicitors —Messrs. Pattinson and Brewer, for Messrs. Flint and Son, Derby; the Director of Public Prosecutions.]

(“Times Law Reports,” Yol xxx, page 215.) [Judicial Committee oe the Privy Council.—(Viscount Haldane, L. 0., Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Parker, and Lord Sumner). —18th December, 1913.] Armstrong v. The King. Privy Council —Judicial Committee—Criminal Appeals — Rule of Practice. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is not in the position of a Court of Criminal Appeal, and does not advise the Crown to interfere in a criminal case unless there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or a gross violation of the rules of procedure. Special leave to appeal from a conviction for murder refused on the above ground, where it was alleged that the jury had been in communication during the trial with persons who were not their custodians. This was a petition for special leave to appeal in forma pauperis from a conviction for murder and sentence of death passed by the Supreme Court of Bermuda. Mr. Travers Humphreys said that the petitioner was not represented, but he appeared on behalf of the Crown. The trial at Bermuda lasted four days, and the petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He sought leave to appeal on the grounds (1) that the members of tbe jury while detained at a hotel at night during the trial had communication with others than their fellows and custodians, and (2) had an opportunity of reading the local newspapers. The latter ground was unsupported by any evidence at all. As to the other matter, the jury were in charge of officers who had been sworn to see that they did not communicate with persons outside on the subject of the trial. It was not stated what the alleged communications were about, or with whom, or what was their effect.

The Lord Chancellor.—lf there was a Court of Criminal Appeal in Bermuda that might be an irregularity which it must take into consideration. This Court is not a Court of Criminal Appeal. This is the King in Council receiving petitions for justice from his subjects. The King never interferes in criminal cases unless there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or some such gross violation of the ordinary rules of procedure as make the trial virtually a farce, The administration of criminal justice is a local matter, and there is no Court of Appeal from the local judicatures in that respect. It is difficult to see how either of the points raised approaches proof that some substantial injustice has been done. Mr. Travers Humphreys said, from what could be gathered from the affidavits, a juror’s telephone message, which was complained about, only related to some milk from his farm, and the other conversations were merely about music and what they preferred to drink. They did not seem to have discussed the trial at all. In Crippen’s case Crippen appealed against his conviction because during the trial a juryman was taken ill and had to be attended by two doctors. It was suggested that that was such a separation of the jury as vitiated the trial, but the Court of Criminal Appeal overruled the objection. At the close of the argument,

The Lord Chancellor said : Their Lordships entertain no doubt about this case. The Constitution of the Empire does not place them in a position of a Court of Criminal Appeal, and there is no such irregularity alleged here as amounts to that substantial interference with the proper course of justice which is essential if the sovereign authority is to be invoked. The petition therefore fails. The Colonial Office have acted very properly in bringing a case of this kind before the attention of the Board.

[Solicitors —Messrs. Sutton, Ommanney, and Rendall, for the Colonial Office.]

Name of Offender. Where tried. When. Offence. Sentence. Native of Trade. Born. Height. I j Comj plexion. Hair. Eyes. 1 j Nose. Distinguishing Marks, &c. Dalziell, William .. Auckland 6/3/14 vagrancy to come up if N. Zealand labourer 1873 ft 5 in. 8 fresh .. brown .. blue crooked .. Scar on nose, on left cheek, and on thumb (See Police Gazette , 1913, page 520.) Ngakai Tainui called on Auckland 6/3/14 theft convicted and aboriginal labourer 1890 5 7 copper.. black, curly brown .. broad See Police Gazette , 1913, page 385. Somerville, Hector or Victor discharged Auckland 7/3/14 breach of the peace fined £1 N. Zealand labourer and 1887 5 6S fresh .. brown grey .. medium mechanic Stanley, Thomas James Auckland 7/3/14 drunkenness .. convicted and N. Zealand labourer 1875 5 6 sallow .. grey brown .. medium discharged refusing to quit licensed fined £1 Munro, Roderick .. premises Auckland 2/3/14 vagrancy oonvicted and Australia .. labourer 1866 5 n fair brown hazel .. medium Woman on swing on right forearm. King, Thomas prohibited Auckland 2/3/14 obscene language fined £1 N. Zealand driver 1898 5 7 dark .. dark blue medium McDonald, Alexander Auckland 4/3/14 drunk and disorderly .. convicted and Scotland .. cook 1883 6 u fresh .. ginger grey .. medium Dimple in chin. discharged Carter, Charles James obscene language fined £3 Auckland 4/3/14 vagrancy to come up if N. Zealand carpenter .. 1871 5 10 fresh .. dark brown grey .. medium Dot on left arm. (See Police Gazette, 1899 • called on, and to Army Home for 6 months page 119.) Devery, William Gillan Te Karaka .. 23/2/14 assaulting police fined £5 N. Zealand bullock1890 5 6 fresh .. brown grey .. crooked driver Eassey, John Otorohanga .. 26/2/14 sly-grog selling fined £30 Syria hawker 1894 5 7 swarthy black, ourly brown .. medium Scar on left wrist. keeping liquor for sale convicted and (2 charges) discharged on each Eassey, Mary Otorohanga .. 26/2/14 sly-grog selling fined £30 Syria fruiterer and 1874 5 3 dark .. blaok brown .. medium keeping liquor for sale convicted and hawker Corban, Helena Otorohanga .. discharged 26/2/14 sly-grog selling fined £40 Syria storekeeper 1870 5 2 dark .. black brown .. long supplying liquor to a convicted and Native in a proclaimed area vagrancy discharged Cox, John Patrick .. Tolaga Bay .. 9/2/14 convicted and N. Zealand butcher and 1880 5 7 fresh .. brown blue long Woman’s bust on right arm ; sinews of left ring discharged and cook finger stiff; scar on tip of left middle finger ordered to leave the town (See Police Gazette , 1913, page 390.) Young, Alfred Frederick, alias Tolaga Bay .. 16/2/14 vagrancy to come up if England .. labourer 1878 5 6 dark .. brown hazel .. medium Three dots on right forearm. (See Police Gazette Ford, Miohael called on 1910, page 468.) Ryan, Thomas Tolaga Bay .. 2/3/14 vagrancy to come up if Ireland labourer 1860 5 6 dark .. black brown .. medium called on Mitohell, George .. Tolaga Bay .. 2/3/14 vagrancy to come up if Wales labourer 1879 5 7 fresh .. black blue medium Man’s head and G.M. on right forearm; wo called on man’s head, star, anchor, and G. upside down on left forearm. (See Police Gazette , 1909 page 229.) Hart, Clara Gisborne 5/3/14 attempted suicide ' .. bound over in N. Zealand domestic .. 1895 5 5 pale dark brown .. medium sum of £5 to come up if called on

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

to Name of Offender. Where tried. When. Offence. Sentence. Native of Trade. d O PQ Height. Complexion. Hair. Eyes. Nose. Distinguishing Marks, &< I nj P Briesemann, Frank Stratford 6/3/14 wilful damage sent to BurnN. Zealand schoolboy .. 1899 ft. in. 5 2 fair dark brown grey .. medium Committal suspended while of good behaviour. ham (See Police Gazette, 1912, page 299.) Scott, Robert Stratford 6/3/14 theft sent to BurnN. Zealand labourer 1894 5 8 dark .. dark brown .. medium Committal suspended while of good behaviour. ham Cook, Frederick Stratford 6/3/14 theft sent to BurnN. Zealand jockey 1899 4 10 dark .. dark brown .. medium Committal suspended while of good behaviour. ham Weldon, John Raetihi 2/3/14 drunk and disorderly .. fined £2 10s. .. Canada labourer and 1882 5 Ilf dark .. black brown .. prominent Scar over right eye and on right forearm. assaulting police fined £8 bushman damaging Government to pay damage property Farrell, Joseph Napier 2/3/14 breach of a prohibition fined £7 10s. .. Tasmania.. seaman . @ 1880 5 8J dark .. brown brown .. large 9 p.c. Man’s bust and SAL on chest; S.L.G., order &c., on left arm. F.P. Photographed at Napier, 18/8/08. (See Police Gazette, 1914, page 63.) Doable, Ronald Napier 2/3/14 theft to come up if N. Zealand schoolboy .. 1904 4 0 dark .. brown brown .. medium called on Wright, Joseph VVaipawa 3/3/14 theft fined £4 10s. .. America .. c.irous 1889 5 3 very fair dark auburn bazel .. straight .. Profusely freckled on face and hands. performer Williams, William Wanganui .. 6/3/14 theft (2 charges) to come ud if England .. labourer 1885 5 6 fresh .. fair blue medium I.J.M.W. on right forearm. called on Johnson, James Wanganui .. 6/3/14 theft (2 charges) to come up if N. Zealand labourer 1878 5 9 sallow .. dark blue medium Large scar on left cheek. called on Gillolley, James or Charles .. Bull’s 6/3/14 found on licensed prefined £1 N. Zealand butcher 1881 5 10 fresh .. dark brown grey .. medium See Police Gazette, 1908, page 158. raises found on licensed prefined 10s. McSweeney, William S. Bull’s 6/3/14 found on licensed prefined 10s. N. Zealand butcher 1880 5 9 pale brown grey .. medium mises Hall, Roy Bull’s 6/3/14 found on licensed prefined 10s. N. Zealand shepherd .. 1900 5 3 dark .. black blue medium mises Smith, James Bull’s 7/3/14 theft to come up if S. America labourer 1900 5 9 fresh .. black dark .. medium called on Reynor, Thomas .. Bull’s 6/3/14 drunkenness .. convicted and England .. labourer 1859 5 8 dark .. dark blue medium discharged Owick, George Palmerston JM. 7/3/14 drunk while in charge fined £1 N. Zealand butcher 1844 5 7 fresh .. grey brown .. medium Scar over left eye and on nose. of a horse and cart damaging police uniform fined 5s. and to pay damage Huiich, William Ashton Carterton 5/3/14 procuring liquor while fined £2 England .. farmer 1850 5 9 dark .. dark brown brown .. pointed .. See Police Gazette, 1914, page 127. prohibited Cronin, Denis Carterton 5/3/14 supplying liquor to profined £3 Ireland labourer 1849 5 4 fresh .. grey brown .. medium See Police Gazette, 1914, page 127. Parker, Ralph hibited person Carterton 5/3/14 wilful damage to pay damage N. Zealand farmer 1893 5 6 dark black grey .. medium 2 p.c. for breach of Defence Act at Carterton, Sc we 11, Frank Carterton wilful damage 9/10/13 and 5/2/14, not gazetted. 5/3/14 to pay damage N. Zealand farmer 1887 5 11J fair fair blue medium See Police Gazette, 1907, page 40. Nimot, Alfred Carterton 5/3/14 wilful damage to pay damage N. Zealand labourer 1890 5 n dark black brown .. long, pointed Nimot, William Carterton 5/3/14 wilful damage to pay damage N. Zealand labourer 1894 5 6 fresh .. fair blue medium

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

Name of Offender. Where tried. When. Offence. Sentence. Native of Trade. d o W Height. i Complexion. Hair. | Eyes. I I Nose. | Distinguishing Marks, &c. Richards, Arthur .. Wellington .. 4/3/14 theft fined £5 N. Zealand clerk 1881 ft. in. 5 8J fresh .. brown, turnblue medium New Zealand emblem on right arm. theft to come up if mg grey called on Ashurst, Joseph Wellington .. 4/3/14 assault fined £3 England .. seaman 1878 5 6 fresh .. grey grey .. medium Japanese girl and fan on right arm. Oompton, Reginald Wellington .. 7/3/14 theft returned to inN. Zealand schoolboy .. 1899 4 114 sallow .. dark brown .. medium dustrial school Burton, Hugh Wellington .. 7/3/14 wilful damage fined 5s. and to pay damage fined £15 England .. labourer 1874 5 7 dark .. brown hazel .. medium Yee Hing .. Wellington .. 7/3/14 in possession of opium China laundryman 1864 5 2 olive .. black brown .. medium Larsen, Oscar Picton 2/3/14 drunkenness.. fined 5s. Sweden fireman 1873 5 9| fair red grey medium Anchor on right forearm and thumb. (See wilful damage fined 5s. Police Gazette, 1909, page 342.) Miller, Hugh Picton 2/3/14 drunkenness .. convicted and Scotland .. labourer 1892 5 6 fresh . dark grey .. medium Heart with L.G., dragoon, eagle, and snake on discharged left forearm ; first joint of right thumb missing. Campbell, James Blair Timaru 5/3/14 rogue and vagabond .. to come up if Ireland labourer 1859 5 7 pale dark,turning blue medium Bald. (See Police Gazette, 1913, page 88.) called on grey McKenzie, Alexander Timaru 4/3/14 refusing to quit licensed fined £1 Scotland .. labourer 1885 5 8 fresh .. fair blue-gr’y medium premises 1862 A consumptive. (See Police Gazette, 1911, page Edgar, Adam Kurow 5/3/14 vagrancy to come up if Scotland .. baker and 5 7f fresh .. brown, turnblue medium called on within 3 months cook ing grey 332.) Harris, John Oamaru 6/3/14 theft fined £2 N. Zealand labourer 1889 5 10J fair light brown grey • • long Scar on head, over left ear ; weight 11 st. 71b. Coulter, Hugh Ferguson Middlemarch 27/3/14 breach of a prohibition order obscene language fined £1 Scotland .. labourer 1854 5 9 fair brown blue medium Blind in one ey6. Heywood, John Middlemarch 28/3/14 fined £4 N. Zealand labourer 1874 5 8 dark .. black brown .. medium Slouching gait. Rollinson, Samuel.. Dunedin 4/3/14 drunkenness .. fined £1 N. Zealand labourer 1859 5 4| fresh .. brown, turngrey medium See Police Gazette, 1911, page 230. obscene language fined £2 ing grey Wilson, William .. Otautau 4/3/14 vagrancy to oome up if England .. labourer and 1870 6 0 sallow .. brown brown .. thick called on carpenter resisting police fined £2 N. Zealand W T alker, Violet Maud Invercargill 4/3/14 theft (2 charges) to come up if domestic .. 1895 5 14 fresh .. black grey .. pug Vers stout. called on

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