POLICE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume III, Issue 631, 19 January 1872, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

THIS DAY. Before Ei Isaacs and G. S. Graham,

Esquires, J.P.s DBITNKEXNESS Three men were fined 5 s and costs for getting intoxicated. BBEACH OF MUNICIPAL COEPOBATION ACT. David Berridge pleaded guilty to leaving his cart unattened in Queen itreet, without a chain being attached to the wheel thereof. Fined 5s and costs. Thomas Geary, for driving two horses on the public footpath in Havelock street, was fined 5s and costs. W. Johnson Parker charged with not keeping a light burning at night upon or near an excavation in Wellesley street. Defendant said that the candle was constantly being stolen at night. Fined 10a and costs.

BBEACH OF MUNICIPAL POLICE ACT. James MeG-rath pleaded guilty to allowing his horse and cart to remain on the public footpath in Symonds street. Fined 2s 6d and costs. Michael Grace, for the some offence, was similarly fined. BEOTHEL KEEPING. Michael Burke was charged, under the Vagrancy Act, with being the occupier of a house in Mills' Lane, which is the resort of prostitutes and persons of no visible lawful means of support. Sergeant-major Pardy proved arresting the prisoner at the house named, and deposed to the bad character of the house. It was the resort of thieves and prostitutes.

Cross-examined: Have never been in defendant's house before, but have seen prostitutes go in three days ago- On arresting the man, one of the girls was reclining on the sofa, with her boots on. Considered she was in an indecent position. "Was not aware that prisoner held a boarding-house license from the Town Clerk. He said the girli were lodging in the house ; he had a perfect right to lodge them. The house bore a bad name, but did not know how long the prisoner had occupied it. ~-,,. Constable Brennan corroborated his sergeant's evidence. Cross-examined: The prisoner had lived at the house about three weeks. Sergeant Walker swore that the prisoner had occupied the house close on three months. It was the resort of persons who have been convicted at this Court for drunkenness and other offenc9S. Cross-examined: Will swear positively that he has lived in the house eight weeks, and was there on New Year's Day. There are two houses attached, and both of them are brothels. Prisoner keeps both. On the 10th December he saw a woman lying in prisoner's house naked, in presence of three men. The keeper of the house was convicted on that occasion for keeping a brothel.

Detective Jeffrey proved cautioning prisoner several times about keeping this house as a brothel. Believed he held a licence.

The license was put in as evidence. Margeret Hurley deposed to the house being a resort of bad character. The Bench considered the case proved and sentenced the prisoner to one month's imprisonment with hard labour, and trusted the City authorities would ba made accquainted with the character of the house for which they had granted a licence: " BILKING " THE TOLL.

Mr W. A. Thompson was charged by Wm. Galbraith, -with unlawfully, with a certain horse, going off a certain turnpike road called Newmarket Eoad Turnpike, through certain land near thereto, with with intent to evade the payment of the toll,—to wit, 3d—on the 10th and 11th instant.

Mr Rees appeared for complainant; Mr Beveride for defendant.

Mr Rees explained that Mr Galbraith was the lessee of the toll-bar in question, and that the defendant having made an offer to complainant to pay a weekly sum in lieu of toll to pass through his bar, which wag refused. Ho had since gone a round-about way, over private property, and so evaded payment of the toll. He urged that Mr Galbraith, having paid a certain a sum to government for the right to collect the tolls, and having complied with the Acts, was perfectly justified in bringing the present suit. He put in as evidence the Turnpike Act, and produced evidence of a formal nature to legalize the proceedings ; also tendered the authority from the Provincial Government to the complainant to levy the tolls and rates for the road.

William Galbraith proved being in possession, since the first of the month, of the toll-bar in question, and had complied with the Act by exhibiting his name and scale of tolls. He deposed that defendant rode through on the Saturday previous to the 10th instant, and refused to pay toll. Defendant told him that he was a low, mean mean man, and if he would not take the toll by the week ho would not pay at all, but would break through the gate and evade payment, and would advise others to follow his example. Complainant was lessee.

Mr Beveridge denied the lesseeship, and right to levy tolls. A long argument between counsel ensued.

The bond was put in, and objected toby defendant's counsel, as the attesting witness had not been produced. The Bench decided that the attesting witness' evidence was not requisite, and Mr Beveridge begged to reserve the question tc the Supreme Court. Evidence continued:—Saw Mr Thompson start from his own house with his horse on the 10th instant, (plans produced and ;objected to) and passed over some allotments at the rear of complainant's tollbar, and afterwas joined the high road in Symond's street.

To Mr Beveridge: Was positive he passed over private land and did not go round certain roads (pointed out to witness on the plan. The Government have agreed to put a chain bar across any road he may require, if it should be found practical to evade the toll by these routesJames Robertson corroborated the evidence relating to the " bilking" the toll, Mr Beveridge submitted that his client had travelled by a public road and not over private property, his conduct was simply, that failing to come to an amicable arrangement with complainant ho had gone by a roundabout way, which he was perfectly justified to do. If people chose to go a long way round to escape the toll, they had a right to do so. He would call the defendant to prove the route he had taken.

Mr. Reos objected to defendant being sworn, on the ground that this was a criminal proceeding. The Bench convicted the defendant in a fine of one shilling and costs (£2 18s. 6d.).

A singular and ludicrous incident marked the proceeding of the last Shrewsbury sessions. A girl was indicted for theft and the trial almost concluded— evidence heard,counsels' speech delivered, and the Recorder's charge commenced— when it was dicovered by the clerk that he had ommitted the all-important " No " in reading the return of the grand jury on the bill of indictment. The discovery of the blunder was received with much laughter, but the Recorder did not seem to apprectte the joke.