CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3799, 28 April 1875, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

Wednesday, April 28. (Before H. S. Fish, Esq. and A. Mercer Esq., J.Fs) Drunkenness. -Charles Brown and Alexander Grubb were each fined 10s, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment; Peter Lain" 10s, or forty-eight hours’; Christian Tonsen’ 40s ? or fourteen days’; and for being an habitual drunkard he was sentenced to an additional thrie months’ imprisonment with hard labor.

Stealing a Watch. William Barnes, a young man, was chained with stealing horn the cut ter Jane, at Stuart street Jetty, on April 22, a silver watch of the value of 50s, the property of Archibald Campbell, A remand for seven days was applied for by and granted to the police, for the production of Campbell Alleged Fraud. John Griffiths was charged on remand with having, on February 2°, at Welshman’s Gully, after filing a petition tor adjudication, concealed Irs book of accounts containing L 287, and one-seventh share in a mining company.—Mr Haggitt prosecuted and Mr Barton defended. Mr Haggitt in stating the case for the prosecution, said that the charge was brought under the 302nd| section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1867, which provided that any person a bankrupt who does not, on his examination, fully and truly discover to the best of his knowledge and belief all his property real and personal, inclusive of his rights and credits, and how ami to whom and for what consideration, and when he disposed of, assigned, or transferred any part thereof, and deliver up to to the Court all books .nd documents in his possession, custody, or power relating to his property or affairs shall lie deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be liable to the discretion of the Court before winch he is convicted to be imprisoned for any time not exceeding three years, with or without hard labor. Sub-section 2, section 307, gave power to the Court on the application, in case

•of bankruptcy, of the trustee or a supervisor or any creditor to grant a certificate certify n;- r that the bankrupt had not fully *< lidclosed how he became dispossessed of certain property.—Richard Hy. Leary, tiu-teo in bankruptcy for the Dunedin District, deposed that he had been elected trustee for accused's estate by the creditois. Witness p.oduced his repot on the matter as forwarded to the Dis , tr’.jo Couit at iNaseby, He was present at Nttsebj' on April 17, when Judge Harvey I granted the certificate produced. Accused isl the person there referred to. He also pro.luc i| the accounts filed by accused. Having exl amined them, ho could state that they did noi include a share in any raining claim. AccuseJ at the time of filing his schedule held J seventh share and water rights in a mini jfl drum at Welshman’s Gully, now called thl (Jambrian. The claim in question was known as Brown and Co.’s, and was valuable property! The general opinion in the district was thal accused’s seventh share was worth from L3o! to LtliO. Whilst at bt. Bathan s witness mad el inquiries as to the existence of the share ahdi accused admitted his interest in the claim which, however, had not been disclosed in his examination. In answer to witness as to why he had not accounted for it in his schedule accused replied that he did not think of it. ’Accused was adjudged a bankrupt on April 22 and witness produced his motion for adjudication.—By Mr Barton: Accused in hi- examination mentioned that he had been in the Hospital for a short time but professed ignorance of everything connected with his account books. - This was the case for the prosecution.—MiBarton submitted that prisoner must be discharged. This Court had no power to deal with the matter, and had - no right to interfere with it in any way. The prosecution had not been carried on m the ordinary way with ordinary facts, but merely a certificate of another Court had been put in. Section 305 provided hat the Court in which the examination was conducted should commit, and clause 307 under which the charge had been brought’ undoubtedly referred to the Court in which the case was heard. Either this Court must hear all the evidence and exercise * its own judicial discretion—they could not take the certificate of another Court—or else they must come to the conclusion that had Judge Harvey had sufficient evidt-nce before him to nave e mmitted accused for trial he would have done so. Had his client committed a misdemeanor then he was entitled to bail, but how could the Jourt exercise its disci etion in fixing the bail without hearing the evidence or any facts ? Had Judge Harvey thought it a proper case for committal he would have bound him over to appear at the Supreme Court, and in the meantime allowed him to go free, or else he must have been of opinion that there was no case for trial at all.— Mr Haggitt, in replying to Mr Barton’s argument as to the impossibility of fixing the bail without heaiiug the evidence, argued that it was the nature of the offence and not the facts which desermined the bail. If the certificate could he produced as evidence against accused in the superior Court, surely it could also be received in an inferior Court.—The Bench ruled that they had power to deal with the case. If the contention of accused’s counsel was correct, a prisoner was to go free, because a judge did not like to commit. The fallacy of this, however, was demonstrated by section 309* which provided that the machinery of the law may be set in motion by other means than the judge who hears the evidence. Accused was committed for trial; bail being allowed, himse f in L2OO, and two sureties of LIOO each.— Mr Barton asked that the bail be reduced, but the Bench held that they would not be justified in so doing, as the offence was a very serious one if the accused was found gujlty. They however were willing to afford accused every facility, and would accept bondsmen in the disT;ct whence he came, if the forms were properly filled up before the Resident Magistrate there.