CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3248, 18 July 1873, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Thursday, July 17. Before J. Black and J, Brown, Esqs., J.P.s.) Drunkenness.— James Hare was fined 10s, with tho option of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment; and Henry 8. Moore, on bail, not appearing, had the amount of his hail (40s) forfeited. Obscene Language.- James Hare was further charged with making use of obscene language within the hearing of persons passing in Walker street. Constable Beasly stated that when on duty in Walker street, on the 15th inst, he heard a man making use of abusive language, and afterwards saw Mr Shepherd turn the accused out. Mr Shepherd said that Hare was in his hotel on the night in question, and from the language he used, and the disturbance he was making, he was obliged to turn hira out. A fine of 20s, with the option of four days’ imprisonment, was imposed.—Donald llobertson was charged on information with making use of indecent language towards Mrs Brodrick. Mr E, Cook, who defended, objected to the information, as the language alleged to have been made was not specified in it. The Bench explained that if Mr Cook pressed tho objection a fresh charge would have to be laid, thus losing some time, Mr Cook said he would waive the objection, but hoped such would not be the case in future, as it prevented one from preparing his defence. After complainant had stated her case in anything but a lucid manner, she asked for

an adjournment, to enable her to produce witnesses ; but Mr Cook objected, saying she had had plenty of time to have subpoenaed them if she desired, the information having been laid on the I2th. The Bench agreed with Mr Cook’s remarks, and dismissed the case.

Wife Desertion. James Hay was charged with deserting his wife Sarah Ann Hay and his three children.—Complainant said that whenever her husband received money he went away and spent it, and did not return till it was all gone. She did not wish to press the charge, and if he promised to make amends she would request the Bench to allow her to withdraw the charge.—The Bench, in dismissing the case, remarked that the defendant appeared to be a strong ablebodied man, and ought to find no difficuUy in getting work ; and added that it was solely at his wife’s request the charge was withdrawn, and that if he were again brought up he would have to contribute a sum towards the maintenance of his wife and children. Bye law Case. —James Wilson was fined 5s and costs for allowing a cow, his property, to wander in Duke street.

Friday, July 18.

(Before J. Black and J. Brown, Esq., J.P.’s.) Larceny. —Thomas Miller was charged with stealing a purse, containing money, from the person of one John Smith, on the 17th inst. Prosecutor was in the accused’s house with some other persons on the previous day, and after having some drink began dozing, and feeling some one about his person, looked for bis perse, and found it was gone, fie accused prisoner and two women sitting near the fire of stealing it. The purse contained some 15s or 16s, and accused was at the time standing about a yard away from him. (The purse was produced, which witness identified as bis property. ) By the Bench : The place was a respectable house, and not a brothel. —Eliza Dean was in accused’s house on the 17th inst., and saw Smith there. She went into a side room, leaving him (accused) in the other room, and on returning saw the latter slip a purse into his pocket, and go into the yard towards the water-closet. When prosecutor said he had been robbed of his purse, she said she saw accused with one. It was a black purse, with steel on it. (The purse was produced, but witness was unable to identify it, only having caught a glance of it, when in accused’s hands.) —-Constable Doran, on being informed of the robbery, proceeded to accused’s house, and was told by him that a purse had been secreted in the watercloset, but be could not say who placed it there. Witness proceeded to the place and found it there. 'To the Bench ; The accused was a sea-faring man, and the house bore a bad character. —Detective Farrell stated the accused had kept prostitues, and it was an open house for any drunken man to go into Accused made a rambling statement, in which he said he had been in the Colony since 1854, there was not a blemish or stain on his character, and before the previous day a policeman had never laid a hand on his shoulder. If his wife was a prostitute, it was unknown to him ; and before he would put his hand into anyone’s pocket he won d starve.—The Bench said they had a doubt about the case, and would di-charge the accused with a caution.

Keeping a Disorderly Public-house. — James fffiields was charged with allowing fighting in his licensed bouse, known as the Australasian Hotel, on the 13th. Mr W. W. Wilson defended,—Constable Jones was en duty in Maclaggan street on the evening of Sunday last. While passing by the defen* dant’s premises, about eleven o’clock, he heard a disturbance, and looking into the window of the room behind the bar, saw two women fighting, and heard bad language used. He then slipped round to the front, and a man said, “ Here’s a policeman. ” The fighting then stopped. One of the women gave her name as Jenny Walker, saying she was a waitress; the other, Mary Brown, saying that she was the house-keeper,—Jane Walker, a prostitute, was here called, and witness said she was one of those fighting. There were at least a dozen men in the hotel, and a women whom he took to be defendant’s wife. On trying to get out, the men jostled him about and wanted him to have a drink At that time he did not know Shields, and therefore could not say whether he was present.—To Mr Wilson : The room in which the women were fighting did not front the main street.—Jane Walker was in the hotel on the night in question, having gone in for a parcel she left there. The police gave evidence that Mary Thompson was a prostitute. Mr Wilson submitted there was no case to answer. The Bench said the charge as it appeared on the information was “unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly, &c.,” but it did not appear, so far as the evidence went, that either defendant or his wife was present. In dismissing the case they would caution the defendant to prevent such characters being in his place, especially on a Sunday evening, even in his absence.