CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3851, 28 June 1875, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, June 28. (Before Messrs A. 0. Begg and J. S. Hickson, Esq.', J.P.’s.) Drunkenness. —James Riley, having been locked up since Saturday, was let off with a caution; Andrew Black, Wm. Hall, and George Campbell were all fined ss, with the usual alternative; Robert Nelson and Peter Johnson each 10s, or 48 hours. Threatening Language. —Daniel M'Callum was charged by his wife, Margaret M‘Callum, with using threatening language towards her. —Complainant deposed that when under the influence of dnnk her husband treated her in a most cruel manner, and threatened to take her life. From his threats she was frightened he would do her bodily harm. Sho had a married woman’s protection order, and wished her husband to find security for his good behaviour towards her. The Bench considered that defendant had acted in a most disgraceful manner, and bound him over to keep the peace towards kjswife for six months on his own recognisance of L2S,

Wife Desertion.— Edward Poole, of Awamoko, was charged by his wife, Margaret Poole, with deserting her and her three children, and leaving them without means of support. Defendant wassummonedjtoappearat the Resident Magistrate’s Court on thesame charge on the 16th February last, and he then stated that he had. left his "wife because she would not leave her parents, and he could not agree with his mother-in-law. He also stated his willingness to take his wife and children up country with him, but as the wife declined to go the case was dismissed. He was now willing to take them away with”' him, but he could not agree with his wife’s parents.—ln answer to the Bench, complainant said that she was not willing to leave Dunedin.—Mr Begg ; Then nothing can be done if you are not willing to go with your husband. When you married him you promised to take him “for better, for worse,” and if you don’t go with him you have only yourself to blame.—Defendant: Well, your Worship, as my wife refuses to go with me, what is to be done as regards the children ? I am even desirous of taking them with me if the law allows me,—The Bench could make no order as to thefchildren without a formal application being made. The case of wife-desertion was dismissed.

Breach op the Licensing Ordinance.— J* B. Jones, of Wain’s Hotel, Manse street, was charged with allowing prostitutes to assemble j house on June 15.—Defendant pleaded that the women were there without his knowledge, and that on being informed they were there he gave instructions to have them ejected. He also gave instructions not to allow them on the premises for the future.— Constable Hinds deposed that he heard a noise when passing Wain’s Hotel ou the night in question, and that on going into the Commercial Room he found a number of men and women congregated. Two of the women, who were fighting, had their false-hair off, and their sleeves tucked up, and were combatting in a manner woi thy of more i-ertentious antagonists. The fight lasted about tw*nty minutes, and the waiters who were present did not inter--6 ® enc 'k : Has anything of the kind been ever known before? Mallard; During the time that Mr Wain kept the hotel, no complaint of a similar kind was ever made.—The Bench believed defendant’s statement that what had occurred was done without his knowledge, and, as this was the first charge of the kind made, tney dismissed the case with a caution, •A- Vicious Doo.^ —Daniel Heffernan was charged with allowing a dangerous dog—his property---to be at large.—Defendant pleaded that he did not know that the dog was a nuisance to the public or he would have destroyed it.—He was fined 5s and costs, and ordered to destroy the “ ugly •ustomer.’’