CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3205, 29 May 1873, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Thursday, May 29, (Before his Worship the Mayor, R. H. Leary, Esq., J.P., and J. Brown, Esq., J.P.)

Obscene Language. -Theft. James Minford was charged with making nse of obscene language, and with stealing from Bannatyne’s Sussex Hotel, George street, a bell of the value of 4s 6d, and a tumbler valued at Is.—Complainant said he wished to withdraw the case of theft, because accused was under the influence of drink, and witness believed ho did not take it intentionally.—He was discharged on the charge of theft, and for making use of obscene language was mulcted in the sum of 20s, with the option of twenty-four hours’ imprisonment with hard labor. Fighting —Frederick Brown alias Edward Charles Samuel Frederick Augustus Hobcroft and William Selby alias Stevenson were charged with fighting in Princes street, at two o’clock this morning. Brown said that Constable M‘K inlay, on taking him to the lock-up, screwed his wrist, and said he would show him (accused) in whose charge he was. He would like to know if such wae the treatment received at the hand's of constables in Dunedin. He intended to make a. complaint to the Commissioner. They were each fined 10s, or, in default, twenty-four hours’ imprisonment with hard labor.

Bastardy.—James Brewster alias Bromiter, on warrant, was charged by Mar,M \nne Macmillan with neglecting to contri hate towards the support of bis illegitimate child aged three TT ‘ecks.. He was remanded till M onday, and admitted to bail in the sum of L3O.

IMPORTANT CASE. Conthavenino the Bve-lawb. —William Frank Robin, and Allan M'Leod soapmakers, Dunedin, carrying on business as M'Leod, Robins, a;d M‘Leod, were charged with erecting a building of wood and iron, tho west si 'e being built against the workshop of William Wilson, on tho 4th September, 1873, and having allowed the same to remain since, contrary to sections 49, 50, and 51 of the Building Regulations of the City of Dunedin. Mr Smith appeared for the Corporation, and Mr ‘ tout defended. —His Worship sai I, previous to the case being hoard, he wished to state that ho had been served with a subpoena in this caale, and he would like to know what he was expected to prove, and if it was still defendant's intention to call him. After evidence had been taken, Mr Stout raised the following objections :—(I.) That the building adjoined Mr Wilson’s workshop, which, according to the thirty fifth bye law, was not a building, and therefore there was no infringements of regulations 49, 50, 51, (2.) The building which adjoined it had been removed, and a brick building substituted for it, (3.) It was not proved that the firm had erected the building. (4.) It was not proved that M'Leod and Co. had been in possession since 2nd May. Tim first objection was over-ruled, but the second rdloWed. The case was dismissed with L2 2s costs.