POLICE COURT.—Monday

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 503, 21 August 1871, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—Monday

[Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M., and G. B.

Owen, Esq., J.P.]

Drunkenness* — Seven persons were punished in tho usual manner for this offence.

Beeach of Vagbant Act.—Mary Ann Curtis, for soliciting in the public street, for the purpose of prostitution, was fined £2 with the alternative of ono month's imprisonment.

Labceny.—Patrick Lynch, who had been discharged from custody a few days ago on his promising to leave town immediately and go to rvork in the country, was charged with stealing a pair of trousers valued at 6s, and having pleaded guilty was sentenced to two months' imprisonment.—Charles Black and George Wright, were charged with stealing three pieces of timber, valued at 12s, the property of J. Waymouth, of Freeman's Bay. Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Joy appeared for the prisoners. It appeared from the explanation of counsel that the wood was part of the supports of an old building which had been carried away piecemeal, and nothing left but such as the owner apparently considered of no value. The act was committed in broad daylight; and when prisoners offered at once to pay the value to prosecutor on his catching them in the act, he turned away and went for the police. The case was remanded until further in the day, in order that the Court might take the matter in consideration.

Peejuby.—Solomon Friedman, on remand, appeared to answer a charge of having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in a case in which he had charged two youths, named McGinley, lof having robbed him on the highway.— j Mr. Brookfield and Mr. Sheehan for prosecui tion ; Mr. Joy, L.L.8., and Mr. Bennett, for the defence.—Mr. Brookfield applied for permission to amend the information, so that the charge might, be made in three different counts. The opposing counsel objected to this course as beiug unfair to tho prisoner. The Court, however, allowed the amendment. —Mr. Cunningham, Clerk of the Court, deposed : —On the 31st of July lust I was iv this Court. The presiding Justices were P. A.. Philips and Thomas Ritchie. This is a Court competent, when presided over by two Justices, to try cases of felony and misdemeanour. On the 31st oi' July a case of highway robbery was tried at this Court, in which the present prisoner charged John and William McGinley with robbery with violence.—Friedman was examined on oath on his own behalf. I took down the depositions. (Witness here read part of the evidence given in tho former case.) To this Mr. Sheehan demurred, as all the sheets had not been signed. It was decided that they could not be received as portion of the deposition, and tho examination was resumed.— The prisoner stated—(here the witness gave in evidence what prisoner had deposed on 31st ultimo, and which has already appeared at length in our columns.) —Cross-examined : Prisoner has stated that he is a foreigner, and understood some of the questions put to him. He said that ho understood all the depositions read over to him before he signed them. He did seem somewhat embarrassed. Thero were marks on his face. As well as I could I took down the exact words which fell from the lips of the prisoner. I do not think I took down erery answer he made. Ho spoke confusedly, and was difficult to understand. He stated ho was excited on the occasion. On the examination referred to, he said he felt John McGinley's hand in his pocket. Thero is nothing in tho deposition stating that John McGinley had taken £15 out of his pocket. —lie-examined : In his oxumination-in-chief ho did say that after lie had been assaulted, aud John McGinley had put his hand into his pocket, he missed his purse, containing £15. The substance of (he evidence was, in my opinion, that John Mckinley had put. his hand in Friedman's pocket and abstracted £15. When prisoner appeared confuted, the questions were slowly and deliberately repealed to him.—Edwin Hesketh, barrister, dopoced : I remember tho charge brought by prisoner against W. and J. McGinley, on 31st July, which was hoard before Messrs. Philips and Ritchie, Justices. Mr. Bennett examined prisoner, and ho was afterwards cross examined by myself. I took notes of the examination. Prisoner stated, iv referenco to tho assault, that lie was riding down Pitt-street, and prisoners walking by his near side, a littlo to his rear, when all at once William McGinley knocked him off his horse. Ho said that he was struck on the left side, and ho fell on the side near Stretton's. —In cross-examination, I pressed him very closely as to whether he was knocked off or came off voluntarily. This appeared to mo to be the main point of the defence. He said ho did not come off the horse of his own free will. He was asked this question iv overy conceivable form, but adhered to his statement. I have not the slightest doubt that ho understood the quostion put to him. I have no doubt that he thoroughly understood every question put to him during the examination. Prisoner further stated that John McGinley had also assaulted him after he bad put his hand into hit pocket and taken his purse. That he went to seize Wm. McGinley and held him by the neck, and held him until John struck him on the face. While holding William in that way he felt John put his hand in his trowsers' pocket and tako out his purse. Ho sai ihe did not feel the purse actually being drawn out of his pocket, but felt the hand of John McGinley. 110 was asked why he did not seize the hand. He said ho could not do so, because one hand was occupied in holding William by tho neck, and tho other in holding the horse.