MAYOR’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2670, 7 September 1871, Page 2

MAYOR’S COURT.

This Hat. (Before his Worship the Mayor.) drunkenness. Michael O’Connor was lined ss; and Francis Grenier 40s, or fourteen days’ imprisonment. MINOR OFFENCE. Jessie Hologhan was fined 10s and costs for using threatening language towards Arthur Lloyd. THEFT. George Rutherford, an old offender, pleaded guilty to three charges of stealing goods from the premises of F. W. ReicheltJ; but explained the cause of his being found there, that ho had felt unwell, and went into the place. The police, however, were able to prove that he had been in the place on three different occasions. He was sentenced to a month's hard labor. THE “ REVIEW ” CASE. John Graham appeared to answer the information of John Gray, fisherman, that he (the said John Graham) was not a licensed hawker. The complainant deposed to purchasing a “ Review ” from Graham for fid, as did other persons. He considered that the selling of the “Review” at street corners came within the bye-law. lie summoned Graham because he was well able to agitate their case—be meant the cause of those who did not believe in the tax on hawkers, Graham, when called on, made a defence which occasioned considerable amusement. He said he did not think he came within the bye-law, which bad reference to those who hawked goods and articles, unless that he came under the last definition; and his “Review” certainly contained some “firm” articles. He made reference to the Constitution, suggested that the prosecution was got up for political purposes, and because his paper was superior to the Press of Dunedin, inasmuch as he invariably wrote the truth, which they did not; and concluded by citing the treatment he receives at the hands of the Hooting Star and Daily Times as reasons why he should be leniently dealt with. The Mayor stated that he was of opinion that newspapers did not come within the meaning of the definition hawker or pedlar, and apart from that consideration, the framers of the bye-law never intended to place a tax on the vendors of newspapers. It would be injudicious to do so, even if it were allowed, and ho was clearly of opinion it was not. If the defendant were ordered out a license, the runners of the Hre.nbtn Slur and Daily Times would have to do the same, which would have the effect of stopping their circulation—a very wrong stop, however. Case dismissed.