POLICE COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1712, 13 August 1875, Page 2

POLICE COURT.—This Day.

(Before F. L. Prime, Esq., (Mayor,) and Dr. Home J.P.) DPvUNKEVNESS.

Ellen Carr pleaded guilty to being intoxicated last night and was fined 5s and costs. Two male offenders who had raised sufficient to bail themselves out did not appear and their bail was forfeited. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT. Robert Mumeard, a seaman pleaded not guilty to a charge of disobedience to lawful commands on board the ship Lutterworth on the 12th instant. The chief officer and the boatswain gave evidence to show that yesterday morning tho man refused to work, he was half drunk at the time.

The- prisoner was sent to prison for four weeks.

A YOUNG "VAPvMINT."

Robert Henry McEwan, a little boy about thirteen yearo old, was brought up under the Naval Training School Act. From the evidence of a witness (a Mr Rogers) who knew the boy's father at Coromandel, it appeared that nothing could be done with the boy at home, who smoked, played truant, and was up to all manner of mischief.

Their Worships ordered the lad to be sent to the Naval Training School for two years, the father to pay 5s per week for his maintenance.

WHERE 'S THE SWEEP?

Mary Churton, who was represented in Court by her Eon Mr John Churton, was fined 2s Od and costs for allowing the chimney of her house in Parnell to catch fire on the 30th ultimo.

0. S. Graham, of Grafton Road, was fined 2s Od and coats for a similar offence.

HARBOUR REGULATIONS.

James Butcher, a carman, was summoned for a brerch of the Harbour Regulations, by not keeping possession of his horse's head while going down the wharf. Defendant pleaded guilty, and Mr J. B. Ru3sell having expatiated upon the danger of the practice, The Court imposed a fine of 5s and costs. Daniel Slade pleaded guilty to a somewhat similar charge, and met with the same punishment. THE LICENSING ACT. Two charges of a breach of the Licensing Act, preferred against Mr Evans of the Pacific Hotel, were put off till to-morrow, Mr Hesketh, defendant's counsel, guaranteeing the costs of the witnesses. It was incidentally mentioned that Mr Evans intended to plead guilty. milk on! Jno. Hogan, a vendor of milk, appeared to answer an information laid against him under the Adulterations to Food Act for selling milk adulterated with water. Mr Broham conducted the prosecution, and Mr Laishley appeared for the defendant. In putting in the various documents great stress was laid upon the gazetted address of the Provincial Analyst.

Defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable Jackson said on the sth of this month he purchased half a pint of milk from one George Grace, who said he was delivering it for John Hogan. Witness told Grace that he was going to have it analysed, and invited him to come with him to tbe analyst's office in Eden-street. -He, replied that he would after he had served his customers. Witness took the milk just as he had received it to Mr Tunny. J. M.* Tunny said: I am Trovincial Analyst duly appointed. I recollect the last witness bringing me a sample of milk on the sth instant. I analysed it and produce the analysis. ■"ThiV showed that the milk was found to consist of one-third water and two-thirds milk. The reading of the analysis was received with loud cries of "Oh !' in court.

George Grace corroborated the constable's evidence.

Mr Laishley, who did not cross-examine the witnesses, addressed the Bench in favour of a dismissal of the charge. Ist. On the ground that the charge should have been laid by complaint instead of by information. The learned counsel suoported this contention by a reference to the 4th sec.ion of the Ac% which, although it referred to a "conviction," thereby lending one to suppose the proceedings should be by information, went on to provide for the acquittal of an accused person if he could prove that he was not aware the article was adulterated. No one could prove what the belief of a man Was but himself, and since, as their Worships were aware, the defendant could not give evidence on a summons laid by information, it therefore followed that it was intended by the Act (very inconsistently it was true) that the proceedings should be by way of complaint.

Mr. Broham said the mention of a conviction was plainly indicative of an information being the proper method. An accused person could bring witnesses to show that he was not cognizant of the adulteration.

Their Worships overruled Mr. Laishley's objection.

That gentleman said he had several more points to raise. He contended next that the ioformation as laid disclosed no offence. It simply ran that John Hogan had sold " an article of drink, to wit milk, which was adulterated," Now, by the provisions of the 4th section, it was impossible for a man to sell adulterated milk without incurring the penalties attending conviction. Two conditions under which this was so were specified in the clause—one being contained in the words "provided that the defendant being the maker or manufacturer of such article could not prove that he had good erounds for believing such article to be unadulterated."

Mr Broham : "That being the maker or manufacturer of such article !" Does Mr Hogan maintain that he is the maker or manufacturer of his milk? (Laughter.) Mr Laishley: " Well, he is according to tho showing of the prosecution." He would call their Worships attention to the saving clauses, which he maintained should have been inserted in the information.

Dr. Home said they did not believe any such insertion was necessary. A further objection raised by Mr Laishley was that the Provincial Gazette notifying the appointment of Mr Tunny had not been put in. Mr Broham said it was, and exhibited the &azette, which was lying on the table. Mr Laishley, after reading the notice, submitted that it was not a notice of the appointment, but simply a notification of the Governor's approval of the appointment. Their Worships were of opinion that it was sufficient for the purpose of the case. Mr Laishley, still persevering for his client, said he would proceed to show that there were grounds for the defendant believing the milk unadulterated. He would call John Hogan. Mr Broham : I objeot. Of course Mr Laishley cannot call the defendant in proceedings laid by information.

Mr Laishley maintained that the Act must be translated as giving him power to do so. No other person than the defendant, could possibly prove what his belief was. He wanted to show that Mr Hogan was ill in bed at the time and knew nothing about the offence.

Their Worships said Mr Laishley could do this by witnesses.

The learned counsel rested his belief on the Act.

Dr Home : I suppose the long and the short of it is that there's no defence at all. Can you show the milk was unadulterated! Mr Laishley said he did not dispute that the milk was impure. He only wanted to prove that the defendant was not aware of it Dr. Home said he had no doubt the defendant wanted to make it out so. The objection was as worthless as the rest. Mr Laishley's next argument was—that the offence was not proved, inasmuch as ** the article had not been previously noted in the New Zealand Gazette and in the Gazette of the province to be adulterated." Mr Broham stated that these words did

noi; apply to such things as milk : they were inlended plainly to meet the case of chemicals and mother articles of food imported in an impure condition. _._■_.. Mr Laishley summed up his objections, after which The Bench said they considered the case proved, and inflicted a fine of £5 and costs on the defendant.

This was all the business.