POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1710, 11 August 1875, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before G. S. Graham and J. Chadwick, Esqs., Justices.) DRUNKENNESS. Spiers Stubras and George Jackson were fined for this offence. A VAGRANT. William McElwee, an old offender, was charged with vagrancy, and the charge being proved he was sent to prison for three months. WEAK TEA. William Long was charged with using threatening and abusive language to Mary Long, the wife of his bosom, on the 9th inst. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The complainant, who spoke with a foreign accent, said her husband, who was in the habit of ill-treating her, had attacked her in the most unprovoked manner on the evening of the 9th with an axe and threatened to do for her. She was in daily fear of her life and begged the protection of the Court. The prisoner questioned his wife with a view to showing that she had been unfaithful to him. To these insinuations the complainant returned an indignant denial, and said that all the harm she had done her husband was to give him weak tea. William French a neighbour of the parties deposed, that hearing a disturbance in the house of Mr and Mrs Long on the 9th inst; he ran in to see what was the matter, and he saw prisoner flourishing a hatchet and heard him say he would swing for her yet,meaning he presumed his wife. The defendant, when asked if he had anything to say, replied that it was all his wife's fault. She had taken up with John Hall, who was " jimmigrants' " cook with them on board the Fernglen, and he had caught them together more than once. On one occasion they had taken possession of his bedroom and locked him out. Sergt.-Major Pardy said the prisoner's story was mainly true. Their Worships ordered the prisoner to find two sureties of £25 each, and to enter into his own recognizances of £50, to keep the peace for six months.

A DOO

George Johnson was lined 5s and costs for having a collarless dog. THE WHARF IN DANGER.

on the first of January,

John Gardener was brought up charged with a breach of the Harbour Board Regulations by passing along the wharf with his dray containing more than 30 cwt. Mr J. B. B,ussell drew a fearful picture of the consequences of the prisoner's excessive loaning. It was said that he had over two tons and a half on his dray. If this was allowed the wharf would be speedily ruined, and the result might even be fatal to human life. The Bench, after calling attention to the cruelty of imposing such a load upon a horse, fined the defendant 18s and costs. OUR .TOLLY YOUNG WATERMAN.

Harry Kcaa appeared to answer a charge of exercising the calling of a waterman without being duly licensed by the Harbour Board. Mr J. B. Russell appeared for the Harbour Board, and Mr Joy for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Mr Russell in opening the case said the circumstances were somewhat peculiar. At the beginning of the year the watermen had complained of their difficulty of getting a living, and to meet their representations the Harbour Board had decided to reduce their license fees from £2 to £1. It was afterwards discovered that ihe result of this reduction was to disfranchise the watermen from voting for the election of members of the Board, and to reinstate them in this priviledge, it was resolved to raise the fees, to their original figure, and at the same time, in order to keep the balance, it waß resolved to allow of the watermen charging a higher rate of fares to the public. The Board had been in the habit of allowing the watermen to pay their license fees in two amounts, £1 being paid half-yearly and the license for the year being granted

When it was

determined to reduce the fees, of course it was deemed that in the first £1 the whole fee for the year had been paid. When, however, this was restored to its original figure, it was plain that the watermen were not justified in taking advantage of the increased rate of fares and also of the diminished fees. The other £1 would be due on the Ist July. The defendant had refused to pay this, and had continued to exercise hie calling as a waterman after the payment became due. As the Board in their changes had only been actuated by a desire to benefit the watermen he considered that the defendant was not deserving of any consideration from the Court.

j Henry Martin, serjeant of the A.C., de- | posed that he knew Kean as a waterman plying for hire. On the 20th July last he saw defendant take a fare from Mr Langdale. He spoke to him about it. Frederick Langdale deposed that on the 20th July he had occasion to use a boat and employed defendant to take him off to a vessel in the harbour. He paid ss. James McCrae Brigham, secretary to the Harbour Board, deposed that the grievances of the watermen had been under the consideration of the Board for some time. To make things lighter for the waterman it was at first agreed in Committee that their licenses should be reduced from £2 to £1. It was found that this did not work well, and the Board after reconsidering the matter determined to restore the licenses to. their former amount and to increase the amount of the fares. The licenses for the year at the reduced figure were issued on the Ist January. "When the further change was. made the watermen were informed that they would have to renew their licenses at the half year. Defendant did not do this, and consequently since the Ist July had not held a license from the Board. - He had spoken to defendant about the necessity of renewing his license, but he had simply laughed at him.

By Mr Joy : By saying that the defendant had no license he meant that he had not taken out any fresh license since the first July.

A letter from this witness in his official capacity informing one Cook and the licensed waterman that the license fees had been reduced to £1 was put in by Mr Jay for the defence but was subsequently withdrawn. Mr Joy said he should call no witnesses for the defence, as he considered Mr. Brigh arc's evidence the best his client could get. He maintained that it had been conclusively shown that Kean had a license.

Both counsel having further addressed the court.

Their Worships retired for a|few minutes, after which they returned into court and dismissed the case stating in reply to Mr. Russell that they did not consider the charge made out.

Costs were allowed,

Another case of a similar nature was not gone into. This was all the business.