POLICE COURT.—THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1681, 8 July 1875, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—THIS DAY.

(Before C. N. Marshall, Esq., and G. P.

Pierce, Esq., Justices.)

DRUNKENNESS,

Joseph Hughea was fined 5s and costs for being drunk last night. Ellen Conlon, who had indulged to freely several timea before, was sentenced to 7 days' imprisonment. SERVE HIM RIGHT. John Kennedy appeared to answer a charge of assaulting a boy named William Smith, by striking him with a whip on the 7th inst. ' Mr Joy appeared for the defendant, and on his behalf pleaded guilty, but urged in mitigation of punishment that the lad had been very impertinent to him, and - used t very bad language. The father of the boy admitted that bia son ha<? behaved very badly, and deserved I his thrashing. X Inspector Brobam believed that the ease was a very trifling one. THE POLICE AND THEI* PRISONER. The same defendant was then charged with assaulting Constable Allen, while in the execution of his duty. The defendent pleaded not guilty. Constable Allen deposed that he arrretted defendant for striking the boy, on the 7th inst. Defendent refused to go with him, and when he attempted to take him into custody he assaulted him by pulling his fine beard, and striking him, to his great inconvenience, with his clenched fist. By Mr Joy: He did throw defendant down. It was not to save himself from falling that defendant pulled his beard. The defendant refused to go with him. because he said, he had to mind his cart. He had seen , the boy's father, and he had declined to prosecute. He did not know what the boy had done. I, Constable Day swora that drfeJ^ant assaulted the constable. The man & Heß&~ v drinking. am PrintlnJK Sergt.-Major Pardy confirmed ifi,Aucklan*»' assertion. If it had not befgfg . |

should have let defendant out on bail. Ih •was only usual to arrest a man in case of an assault when there was a danger of it bting repeated. Mr Joy said he had several witness to call ■pha^ -would show that the assault was com- \ by the constable. l^rMeEsenger, fruiterer, deposed that he saw the wboJe affair, and considered the man ■^as quite right in striking the bey. He saw the constable throw Kennedy down. He •vyas covered with mud, and his excitement was not to be wondered at. He did not see the accused strike the constable. If any assault were committed, it was by the constable., _ i John Brock, a builder and carpenter, said he witnessed the witnessed the affray. Pefendant was carting for him at the time. The policeman came up to Kennedy and said be must go with him for assaulting the boy. Kennedy replied he could not go with him, as he had to mind his cart. He said his name and address were on his cart, and he could be summoned. He saw the, policeman trip Kennedy up with his foot, and as he fell he clutched at the constable's whiskers. Witness saw the constable let drive at the defendant in the face. By Inspector Broham : The defendant did refuse to go with the constable. The' Bench decided that for the first offence of striking the boy defendant must pay Is and costs, and for assaulting the constable, 20s and costs. FOKCINa THE TOLL. William Lundon was charged with forcibly passing through the toll-gate of the Tamaki Bridge on the Sth June. Jtr J. B. .Russell appeared for Mr Lundon, and Mr Joy for the toll-keeper. Mr Eussell, after stating that the charge should have been laid by complaint, not by information, proceeded to object that the information was invalid since the words " with intent to evade payment of the toll " had not been inserted in terms of section 7 of the Tamaki Bridge Act, under which the information was laid. Mr Joy contended that ther.e was no necessity for the words being put in. The Bench decided that the information had not been properly laid, and dismissed the charge.

JVIr Joy objected. If the information was wrongly laid, he contended he had power under the Justices of the Peace Act to apply to have the information amended. Their Worship's maintained their decision. Mr Joy requested to have a note made of his objection, as he should probably apply for a mandamus against the decision. At any rate he should have the charge laid again; Mr J. B. Russell applied for costs. The Magistrates thought that the question of costs could be left to await the decision in the other case which was to be heard. A FTJKTHER CHARGE. A further charge against Mr Lundon of obstructing the wife of the toll-keeper while in discharge of duties legally relegated to her by her husband. This charge was by consent adjourned till to-morrow.