CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3800, 29 April 1875, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

Thursday, April 29. f Before Messrs H. S. Fish, jun., andß. H. Leary, Esq.s, J.P.s.)

Vagrancy. Sweating, alias Henry Simpson, was charged with solicting alms at Dunedin, on April 29, with being a rogue and a vagabond, having been previously convicted as an idle and disorderly person, and' with being an incorrigible rogue.—Prisoner, who is an old offender, pleaded guilty, to the first charge only. —Mr Fish said that he could not see the necessity for the three charges, and Inspector Mallard replied that they had been brought in order that.prisoner might see that he had made himself liable to a penalty of three years’ imprisonment by soliciting alms after having been convicted for vagrancy. When out of gaol he was a perfect nuisance.—Mr Turton: Will your Worship allow me, as amicus curia;, to point out that the soliciting for these alms must have been under a false pretence.—lnspector Mallard : Nothing of the kind. Sub sections—the clause in question—only provides that the begging should be in a public place.—On each of the first two charges, accused was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, with hard labor. The third count—under which he was charged with being an incorrigible rogue—was dismissed. . Stealing a Magpie. —John Connor, a pensioner of the Fast Indian Company, was charged with drunkenness and with stealing a magpie and cage from the shop of Mr Jewitt, fishmonger, Princes sfceeet.—Prisoner removed the bird while in a drunken state, and deposited it In the lobby of the Prince Alfred Hotel, three doors above prosecutor’s shop, leaving it in an exposed condition, and then walked away. It was stated by the police that if accused was convicted of larceny he would run a great risk of losing his pension, and as prosecutor was unwilling to pi ess the charge he was discharged with a strong admonition. For being drunk he was fined ss, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment.

cV r “ oly-groo Traffic. Jane Collins was charged with selling two glasses of ale at Green Island on April 19, she not being a person duly licensed. The case was adjourned from Tuesday last, after the evidence for the prosecution had been taken, on the application of Mr Turton, counsel fo.i the defence, who stated that he had been takenbysurprisebyanamendmentof the information. He now submitted that theie was no such place as the Justices of the Peace Court that it had not been proved that defondans was not a duly licensed person, and that no conviction could take place as under section 4 of the Licensing Amendment Act, 1873. It was provided that the provisions of the Act should be carried into effect by “ such Resident Magistrate as shall be appointed for the purpose°by the Governor,” and this had not been done. The Bench were of opinion that the case was proved. As regarded the first objection it was perfectly immaterial where the Justices of the Peace sat. The information could be tried wherever they sat. The proof that defendant was not a licensed person did not lie with the prosecution —the onus of proving that she was licensed clearly rested on the defendant. The other objection did not apply —Defendant was fined L2O and costs.—Mr Turton asked for permission for proceedings to be stayed for a week, in order to get the opinion of the superior < 'ourt on the points raised.—The Bench decided that they had nothing more to do than what the law prescribed, record the judgment of the Court, and that had already been done Ihomas Henwood was charged, on the infer-, mation of Revenue Constable Hogan, with selling two glasses of gin on April 17, he not person duly licensed.—The..case arose thiswise :•-On Tuesday last Michael Boland selling gin to Revenue ConWood. It was proved that by He nwood, and on the latter t W( )£ that Bola ncl was in bed at r 3 % nwo °d) was attending oh fTj and-not as a servant, and that the drink had been supplied without Boland’s

knowledge or conseus. Under the circumstances the Bench held that Boland could not be convicted, but suggested that the police should take immediate proceedings against Hen wood. This course they decided to adopt but being unable to find Henwood left the summons in Boland’s hands, defendant having been last seen in his house. The Bencli accordingly heard the case, exparte, and in giving the decision of the Court, Mr Fish said :—The Bench are of opinion that the surrounding circumstances of this case are sufficiently strong and peculiar to justify them in inflicting a heavy penalty. The decision of the Court is that defendant be fined in the sum of 1 50, the full penalty allowed by law, with costs of Court. —A warrant to distrain on his property in default of payment was granted. A second charge was withdrawn at the suggestion of the Bench.