POLICE COURT.—Wednesday,

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 565, 1 November 1871, Page 2

POLICE COURT.— Wednesday,

[Before W. 0, D-ildy, and J. M. Dargaville, Esquires, Justices].

Drunkenness —Two drunkards were punished in Lite usual manner.

Indhcgnt bXPOsDßE.—Edward G-lasson, for this offence, was discharged with a caution, he beiriij a Maori, and not uware he was committing iin impropriety Thheatenino- Language — John ymith was brought up on warrant, charged with using threatening language towards his wife Oath, rim) Smith. He pleaded not guilty. ProsecuLrix deposed to the violent conduct of prisoner towards her, and said she was afraid to return home. Prisoner made a speech in hi 3 defence, and endeavoured to throw the biame. on his wife, who he said had several times left his house, ami remained absent for some days. The B,:nch thought it a pily that sumli cases should be brought into Court; and as there was no corroborative evidence dismissed the c-ase.—Kiohard Dougherty was b ought up by his wife Mary Dougherty f osecutrix swore that ;>!ie was afraid he would lake her life, and that of her children. Detective Ternahan deposed that complaints had been repeatedly made of the violent condut of prisoner, and the poice had been called in to interfere. Prisoner said ii. was the fault of his wile, who was in the habit of getting drunk and whde in that stale committing outrages. Ordered to find security to keep the pi-ace for three months, or t& be imprisoned for th it period. BbEACHKS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Act. — ii. Sandail, for allowing a horse to st>ay, was fined five shillings. — Kobert White, for a similar offence, was also fined 5s. — William Mtlith, for allowing his chimney to take fire, was fined ten shillings.—Wiiliam May, lor being aw.iy from his vehicle, was fined ten shillings and costs.

Breach of Harbour Regulations.— Peter Matzen, master of the schooner Golden Isle, was charged with neglecting to exhibit a bright light on board that vessel during the n glit of Sunday 29th inßt., while she was at anchor in the port of Auckland. — Mr. Beveridge appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. J. B. .Russell for the defence. — Captain Burgess, chief harbour master deposed to having laid information.—To Mr. Russell: I have no authority to lay such information except that it has been the custom of the Oourfc. —Mr. Russell submitted that Captain Burgess had in reality no authority whatever. It was an omission in the Harbour Regulations, which failed to appoint, any person to take proceedings against offenders." Mr*Bever idg. quoted from " Oakes," to shew that in default ol any person being formally appointed, it wns competent to any | erson to lay an information. Mr. Russell replied. —The Bench thought, the common sense view ol' the matter was that an information could be laid by any one, and decided to go on with the case, reserving tho objections. Sergeant Oarrigan deposed that at 8 o'clock on the night of the 29th there wan no light on tho Grolden Isle, lie went on board, and found no one there, aml no light. Constable Driver deposed that at twenty minutes to ten, he saw a lantern hanging in the fore part of the vessel, but. there was no light in it. A man came on board soon afterwards, and put a light up. The schooner was in tho 'rack of the Thames bteamers. —Mr. Russell objected that it had not been shown that the vessel was lying within the port of Auckland. Mr. Beveridge quoted the 45th section of the Marine Act, which showed-it to be unnecessary in the present, instance. Mr. Russell then pointed out th it it had not been ohown thai the Harbour Regulations had been gazetted as required by the Marine Act. The Beneli held the objection fatal, and dismissed the case withoutcosts. I'he same defendant was then charged w th a similar neglect on the night of the 28th inst I he same evidence was then given in this case, and the same objection raised as to the competency of Captain Burgess to hiy the information. — For the defence, Mr. Russell called W. 11. Wila*.n, mute of the vessel, who deposed that on the night in quest on he wa-le-1 in charge of Ihe vessel. The captain dm not on that afternoon say any tiling about keeping a light burning. He, however, give instructions on Friday evening to see the vessel did not drag her anchors, and to keep the light burning. These orders were carried out on Saturday evening, as far as the light would burn. It was lit about a quarter-pa»t six. At t-even it hud gone out und been lit a second time. Witness then went ashore, leaving i lie cook in charge. It was <i very stormy night. —Ou account of the o ection raised by Mr. Russ 11, the Bench thought, it necessary to reserve th--ir decision, in order ih.t th" nutter might be> rel erred to tiie Attorney-General. The question iras a most imuofaul one, as, if Mr. Ku-^ell's ol\j*etion? werd held valLl, if the regulations had not be>n ynzetted, they were all null ami void. —Mr. Russell pressed for judgment, in order that he might, appeal if nece.-sary. If, however, they should inflict a nominal pe-mlty, he would allow the matter to drop —Ju Igtnent was deferred until this day month. — The same dsfendant was then charged with neglecting to leave a person in charge on the n'ght of the 29th of October.— Mr. Russell raised the same objection to the action of Captain Burgess.—Mr. Biiveridge cited cases in the Law Reports, which showed that, under certain circumstances, any person might sue.—Judgment was also deferred for a month in this case, the Bench considering that, without advice and consideration, they were not competent to decide in a difficult question like that in question, where the intricate law of evidence was concerned.