POLICE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume III, Issue 618, 4 January 1872, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

THIS DAY

Before His Worship the Mayor and L D Nathan, Esq, J.P.

INTOXICATION,

Three persons for this offence were mulcted in the usual penalty and a woman named Ellen McLean, against whom there were thirty previous convictions, was sent to gaol for seven days.

POVERTY, A CRIME. ;rs°eir,o"_-lt e S even days with hard labor

GOAT NUISANCE. to stray in Cook J*roet «^ fo _ - like S_S£fc4?_£K--r t LEAVING HIS CART. Thomas Hamilton £eaded guilty to the infrmgmeut of^ } anCSstened by a chain. His excuse was that he was compelled to leave hi i cart and couldn't help himself, he wasn't well Fined ten shillings and costs nevertheless. UPSETTING THE BUTCHER. Frederick Hammond pleaded not guilty assaulting Peter McArthur, by striking him on the face. i •„„„* Mr Beveridge appeared for complainant; Mr Joy for the defendant. Complainant deposed to the assault, which he alleged to have arisen from his taking a basket of meat out of a butcher s shop in Shortland-streot, when the defendant rushed at him like a madman and sent him sprawling in the gutter, cornbeef, basket and all. To Mr Joy the complainant admitted that the basket did not belong to him, he had the use of it, he took it: the defendant claimed the basket, and took it from him. A witness for the defenant deposed to witnessing the alleged assault, which he desribed as simply consisting of defendant seizing hold of the basket and claiming it as his own. Was positive the assault was upon the basket alone, and not upon the complainant. The case was dismissed with costs; the defendant retaining the basket, and complainant the meat. THEFT. John O'Connor was charged with stealing the sum of thirty shillings from the person of Christian Lawson. The case was adjourned until Monday, upon the application of the prisoner. ELOPEMENT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

John Millan again surrendered to his recognizances in answer to a charge of stealing two boxes containing clothes, &c., the property of Henry Schildt, on 4th November. Mr. Beveridge, instructed by Mr Rees, appeared to prosecute. Mr Joy defended. On the application of Mr Beveridge the evidence taken on tho previous occasions was read over from which it appeared that defendant had run away with prosecutor's wife, as this was not an indictable offence he had hit upon the expedient of prosecuting him, for running away with her clothes. The cross-examination of the prosecutor by Mr Joy was continued. The wife left him in July, and sent for her boxes next day.'.he took them to her like a dutiful husband little dreaming of her perfidy, He had four boxes and one was square and that made five. The watch was in tbe empty box ; the box was a large one as big as a block of stone. Ho left the boxes in the charge of " a party by the name ot Johnson," and paid warehouse rent for them. He now charges the defendent with taking those very boxes from "Jhe party by *!»• »»°l° °r Johnson, in compiny with the " missus." He gave instructions to her to fetch them, believing the missus would follow him to Christchurch. He was anxiously awaiting her arrival, but discovered she was in the arms of her lover, and the villian was sporting prosecutor's watch and gold albert chain. This he included in the charge against him. He never gave Mr Mason authority to sell the chain. He had left a gold watch'and this chain with Mr Mason as security for a debt of £4. Defendant must have obtained the chain from Mason. He went with the detective to defendant's houseIt was furnished, and a double bed m it; this was a sore point with him. 1 hey had actually used his tomahawk to chop their firewood-. , , To Mr Beveridge: All he knew was, that ho left the boxes with "a party by the name of Johnson" before he went South, in the month of July, and when he returned he found them in defendant s possession and his wife and all, in the month of December. Detective Murphy proved arresting defendant on the Bth Decembervat bis^own house at Tararu, and explained the nature of the charge. He denied it %n toto. Ihe only article inhis possession mentioned in the warrant waMa gold chain .and that he purchased from Mrs Schildt. The boxes, he said, had been brought there by her. She was present. They were taking tea together. She corroborated his statement. He admitted the intimacy, but denied the robbery; was indigant at such a charge ; would not be guilty of such a thing. Took him to the lock-up nevertheless. The articles were given up; they consisted of a bottle of marking ink, a clock, a hair brush, a scent bottle, a prayer-book, several hammers and other things, including a watch and chain. There was only one bed in the house ; it was a large bed, but no one was in it. The house contained two rooms, at least, three ; did not go into the third room. This coustituted the case for the prosecution and Mr Joy addressed the Bench on behalf of his client, and urged that there was really no proof that defendant did steal and carry away certain goods. No inveiglement of a man's wife had been proved, nor had it been shown that defendant had tempted the woman to take away any goods. The prosecutor had in fact disproved tho statement made by counsel on b former occasion that an adulterer had inducedjhis wife to rob her husband. The Court were of opinion that a prima facise case had not been made out, and dismissed the suit, and the defendant left the Court with prosecutor's wife.

This concluded the business.