CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3310, 29 September 1873, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, September 29. (Before His Worship the Mayor and J. Black, Esq., J.P.)

Drunkenness. Mary Thompson and Bridget Kane, both old offenders, were each fined 40s, with the option of fourteen days’ imprisonment. A Pitiable Case. —Francis C-. South was charged with being drunk in Princes street on Saturday evening. Constable Vernon said he saw the accused fall down near the University Buildings, and that he had him put into a cab and conveyed fo the station. Witness was examined at considerable length by the defendant, during which he stated that South suddenly fell down, and seemed quite helpless, as though be had lost all power of his logs. Witness was quite sure he was not in a fit at the time, although he appeared something like it when taken to the station.—Defendant said he had been taken with a fit, and that he would go away to-day if the Bench would let him off. The Mayor said he could testify to what the constable stated, as ho had seen him twice on the Saturday night, and that he felt sorry for him, as lie had been up before him (his Worship) on a previous occasion. He was fined L‘2, or in default 14 days’ imprisonment with hard labor.—South was then further charged with being an habitual drunkard. Constable Vernon having proved the convictions, defendant questioned the number of convictions against him.—His Worship pointed out that ho had been dismissed on the charge to which he referred, as the Bench held that a dismissal was not a conviction, but adding the offence for which he had just been sentenced, that made three distinct convictions, exclusive of the dismissal.—South continued that he had been charged with an offence already dismissed, and he therefore submitted that according to the law of England, which applied to this Colony, it was an unlawful charge.—Mf Black said that it must he obvious to defendant, that on his being brought up once and discharged, and having again committed the offence, it would not exonerate him because a similar case had been dismissed. —His Worship thought it a great pity to see a welleducated young man like the defendant go to destruction in the way he was doing ; but said there was no alternative but to sentence him to one mouth’s imprisonment, with hard labor.