POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1687, 15 July 1875, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., K.M.) LOVELY NELLIE. Ellen Brown alias Lovely Nellie, was brought up on a charge of being found drunk and incapable in the public thoroughfare. Mrs Brown, previous to being brought into Court, fainted in the passage. Upon recovering slightly she pleaded guilty, and was fined ss. and costs. A LONELY MAN. John Wilson was charged under the Vagrancy Act, but upon coming into Court ie)', down in a fit. The prisoner being in a verj weakly state, the case was remanded til' to-morrow. ALFRED THE LITTLE. Alfred Arnold, a .seamam, was chargee with deserting from H. M. ship Dido on the 2nd inst On the application of Sergeant-Majo] Pardy the fugitive was remanded for a week Attempt§d Sfe&er of a "Wife. lagllight Paalson, a native of Norway, was again brought up on a charge of attempting to murder Lena, his wife, by striking her or the head with a large stone at lliverhead, 01 the 12th inst. Mr Herman Mattson, baker, of Baker street, acted as interpreter. Prisoner said that he struck his wife, bu she hit him wii/h tiie stone first; she was th< aggressor. Lena Paalson, wife of prisoner, who was ii a very delicate state of health, was accommodated with a chair, deposed that she resided at Kiverhead ; Mrs Christian, a friend, asked her to come and spend a week with her ; she was parted from her husband; she lef*t him in Norway, and emigrated to this country, and he came out after her ; he found her out, and said he was going to leave her, and was going to sea ; he wanted to say " goocsbjs.;" she said, very well; I suppose you will come back again. (The poor woman here gave way, and was quite incapable of proceeding with tha evidence, and was taken into the passage for a short time.) On returning into Court she proceeded to say that he caught her by the hair and struck her on the head three times. She saw that he had someting heavy in his pocket, and upon enquiring he grew angry and committed the offence. She fell down insensible.

Prisoner said he gave her two blows on the head, but not three; the third blow was false, and his wife had told a fib. Lousia Christian, a married woman, also

lived at Riverhead. She knew the Paalsons. ?iBP She was a Norwegian. She saw Paalson and 3 M his wife on Monday morning last. They 9 I met. He said he was going to take ship and I going to leave his Lena. She seemed ■ pleased at the intelligence. She --—t Si-~"Y I to get some wood, and on iookin r d/ SS I prisoner hammefing his wife'd I } V W did not know how many times h\ -i ' .V.. ■ He was very quick about it. —I B duced with stains of blood on it.) The . 1 blood was from Mrs. Paalson's head. w Sergeant Henry Martin deposed t^i£oa jl Monday last he accompanied the wony'^V 1 the hospital where her head was dre?-' & I Dr Norton ; he observed that blood -^ed by > j the woman's head, there was a scalps upon- 31' the hair was matted in consequence. _ vAjl i Prisoner said he had a hole in his head which his wife had made. j .. Serjeant Merlin examined prisoner's head at tbe request of the court, but could not discover any indentation; prisoner said it must have healed up, there was a great holo there ; he was angry with his wife, because she had got another sweetheart. She wa3 false to him j she did § not love him truly. 1 His Worship said that because she had I another sweetheart, that was no excuse for his conduct in trying to kill her with a stone, the Court would find him guilty, acd he must go to prison for two months with hard labour, and, at the expiration of that term, to find two 6>uretie3 in £?5 each for his good behaviour for the next six months. Prisoner said he could not find sureties ; I His Worship replied that he muatjeherefore & continue in prison for the who'e term. I BREACH OF DOMAIN ACT. . / <f John Harker appeared in answer to a |||p summons charging him with a breach of the \||| Domain Act, in having removed certain W$ buildings in the Barrack rtssrve, against \i| the provisions of the said Act. V i The particulars of this case were discussed > a few days since, when his Worship promised to consider certain cases cited analogous to the present case, and he had come to the conclusion after much care that the Commissioners being a corporate body could not delegate their powers to a stranger, and con- j sequently Mr H. II Lusk had not the power to lay the information ; the Court, therefore, had no alternative but to dismiss the case. j A similar iuformation against Thomas .; Howeli was also dismissed. f, TAMAKI BRIDGE. ; William Lundon, hotel keeper and omnibus proprietor, of Howick, was summoned for committing a breach of the Tamaki Bridge Act, by driving his 'bus and pair of horses over the bridge with a view of evading payment of toll. Mr Joy appeared for the prosecution, and Mr J. B. Rufeseli for the defendant. His Worship suggested that this case shoul i have been tried in the locality, as it was now the practice in every outlying distiict, to send all their cases tD this Court, which was being overwhelmrd with business more in fact than the Court could properly get through. It was also pressing very heavily ou the clerk _ whose fingers could scarcely keep space with accumulating work. Me would of course hear the present cas-, but he certainly objected to every case from distant places being sent to this Court through, it was said, the tardiness of justice in couscquence of the long intervals between the sittings of country Courts. He believed that if such cas:s were heard in the localities of the complaint?, it would not only ease this Courh, but would be for the general benefit of remote settlers. Mr Joy addressed the Court at great length in favor of his client, and cited a number of similar cases to shew that Mr LuDdon had committed a breach of the Act by forcibly crossing Tamaki Bridge and evadiug the toll. A plan of the bridge and j locality was put in, bub which was not very I artistically drawn. ■ _ I Tamaki Bridge wag described as most I picturesque, and perfectly rural in its I situation. ' If His Woiship said he had not been that I way since the bridge was built. ■ Mr. ilussell suggested that the case should I be rtni^nded to Howick, when his Worship t would have the opportunity of seeing the H bi idge. m Mr. Joy said ■ there would be the further I pleasure of visiting the dull but far-famed I village of Howick. f Counsel then turned to a number of | authorities, which were submitted to the | Court. m I Mr Joy then put in as evidence the 1 "Tamaki" Bridge Act," and the "Gazette" I of the township district", of December, 1864; 1; also, the lease aud bond under which the I lessee was employed at the time the offence I was committed. [' John Argus Hyorfch produced the condi- | tions of lease under which he acted under § the Superintendent as toil-collector of the I bridge. £ Mr Russell contended that Hyorth was i; ■ not properly appointed, which could be ■ : shewn. i t Mr Hyorth said he knew nothing about R ; " properly appointed," but he knew that he I;; purchased the privilege as the highest I I bidder. He only had his documents respect- ■ ing the lease. . n His Worship asked, assuming that inform* ■ ant was lessee, would that make him a f collector ? t I After some discussion on this point the « case moved on. H Harriet Hyortb, wife of last witness, de- f 3 posed that she lived in the toll-house, and | I was in the habit of collecting the toll and, | - with assistance, opening the drawbridge; she I: acted for her husband. H b Mr Russell considered that Hyorth could i i not delegate this business to his wife. m 1 His Worship thought he could, and the I case moved on. ' m Witness said she was opening the swing* t - bridge on the morning in question, when Mr 1 Lvrndon drove up with his 'bus and pair; the p bridge was half open, and Mr Lundon said 1 " close that bridge," she could not; he called again, and she positivelj refused. He then, said he would do it himself, he jumped off nis 1 bus, opened the toll-gate and threw the chain c in the grass by the road-side. He then ordered her to clear out, when she asked him v r he was aware that he was interfering with ;. her duty. He replied that he intended to close the bridge, despite her notions of duty. He then swung up his arms, and snatched s the winch-handle out of her hands, and g ordered her off. He closed the bridge, and a prevented the cutter Bella from passing. She E a knocked against the bridge. fl Mr Russell said the opening; of that bridge ■- had rendered the woman liable to a penalty X of £10. ■ t Mr Lundoa called Constable Naughtonto c his assistance, and went over the bridge witfl- B out paying. W: n Cross-examined by Mr Russell. B

The Courb then adjourned. Thomas Boakes corroborated the evidence of Mrs Hyorth as to the action of defendant; in forcing a passage over the bridge. John Hyorth, a lad of about tea years old, also gave evidence similar in every respect to that of Mrs Hyorth. Cross-examination failed to shake his teS".i timony. He did hear defendant call out when he got to the bridge, and say he must: cross because he was carrying the mail. Constable JSTanghton, examined, said that ou the morning of the Bth of last month He was a passenger by defendant's bus. vvnen it .arrived at the toll-gate, defendant asfcea Mrs Hyorth to close the bridge, and allow the mail to go over. She would not, and ae-, fendant and the passengers went and closea the passage, opening it again after the w» had passed. "" R. B. Lusk, Provincial Accountant, ww questioned as to thb appointment of or lessee of the tolls. There was no evidence of his appointment\as such except the boaa*^; which had beenM<jj<KCtfjJt>y him. . _^__ ' 5

the evidence, and counsel I to address the Court. Mr Eussell for the defendant contended it no evidence tad been adduced to shew lift the bridge said to be leased to Hyor;h * that referred to in the Act of 1864. He ff3nt on to raise other technical objections. ' PounEel for the defendant succeeded in nvjrig that the Act wr.s thoroughly defe-c- ------: ?• c .nid that the plaintiff could not levy tfll there, and his Worship said he had no it rnative but to dismiss the case. * EPTJC-VTIOU KATE. , A bo«t thirty summonses ftr non-payment fthe education rate were then proceeded Uh- ______