CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3864, 13 July 1875, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

TtJBSDAV, JtTLT 18. (Before H. S. Fish, Esq., and J. S. Hiokson, Esq., j;P.'B.) Dmjnkinnbsb. Charles Brown, Patrlok Healey, Michael Quish, Wm. O'Leary, Francis Shorn, James Thompson, and James M'Mann were respectively lined ss. Henry Veeey, an old offender, vai charged with being drunk in Hope street, and further with being an habitual drunkard. Prisoner did not contradict the evidence, but pleaded, in extenuation, that ho was a hard working man when sober. —The mora serious charge was dismissed, and for the minor one he was fined 40s, in default three days' imprisonment. Attempted Burglary.—George Chapman, an immigrant by the Buckinghamshire, was charged, on the information of Alex. Inglis, draper, George street, with being unlawfully upon his premises on the previous evening.— Prisoner, who affected the greatest nonchalance. denied any knowledge of the matter, and stated that the informant was mistaken in his identity.—llobert M'Kinlay, an employe' of Messrs In .-lis, stated that ou the previous evening, about eight o'clock, he was going round the premises before closing up, as cußtomary, and observed a man scaling the fence. On Bpeaking to him the man made off, and witness gave chase, never missing sight of him except when turning the corner of a building. Accused ran towards the house of a Mrs Momon, in Greatf King street, and by taking a short cut witness met him face to face and challenged him to render a satisfactory aecount of himself. Pi isoner was out of breath with hard running, and stoutly denied being near InguVs, asserting that he had been in one of the houseß close by all ninht Witness immediately volunteered to forego any further action, if he (prisoner) would justify himself by taking witness io the persons in whose company he alleged he had been! Accused did not do so, aud was therefore given into police custody.—When asked what he had to say, prisoner, affecting an air of gravity, sail it was * great pity that an innocent person should be arrested in such a manner.—Mr Fish remarked that the charge was a very serious one, and in order that inquiries might be made as to prisoner's character, he would be remanded until tomorrow.

Yaora.nct. —Jane M'Leod was sentenced to three months' imprisonment for vagrancy. A Disorderly House.—William Hall, pro. prietor of Bristol House, Cumberland street, was charged with having, on the 3rd inst., been the occupier of a house frequented by vagrants. —Mr Harris, defendant's counsel, before the evidence watj taken, said he would plead not guilty in the meantime.—Mary Gillon, Margaret Kelly, Florence Mercer, Amelia Hickey, MaryDugan, Helena Hickey, Mary Ccuneil, and Harriet Heath, all young women, Btated that they had lived at defendant's house, pay* ing him LI a-week for board. Some said they were supported by persons living in the Colony, and others that they were mauhinsts, and were thus enabled to pay their board.— Sergeant-Major Bevan, Sergeants Deane and Morkane, and Constables Conn and Gilbert all fave testimony regarding the character of the ouse and those who frequented it. —Mr M'l.eod, patt proprietor of the Soap Works, Cumberland street, wasahso called for a similiar purpose, but, after a few questions, was allowed to stand down, the Bench characterising the manner in which he had given his evidence as very unsatisfactory.—Thiß closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Mr Harris said he would not call evidence. The great and deep question in this case had occupied the minds of legislatures in England and the British Colonies over and over again, being one of those things which sooiety was greatly interested in. It was a social evil which must exist, and would do bo, according to the population and means of the people. He did not wish to adyeoate immorality, but would point out that there was a deep question underlying it, and such immorality could never be_ put a stop to. In conclusion, he plight state that defendant had sucoeeded in letting his house to a respectable tenant, who would ultimately apply to have it licensed as an hotel. After consideration with Mr Hickaon, Mr Fish Baid the Bench were under the impression that the allegations set up by the prosecution had been cltarly proved. There could be no doubt that the police were only doing properly in bringing prisoner before the Court. No right-thinking man could help admitting tho truth ef what Mr Harris had advocated regarding the social aspect of the case; but the Bench could not ceusider this: they! must administer tho law as they found it. Prostitution was in the eyes of the law illegal, and persons keeping prostitutes in their houses were liable to punishment. There could be no doubt that prostitution must necessarily exist to a greater or less extent; but tho persons who kept houses where young girls were decoyed from the paths of virtue and ultimately "became prostitutes, whereas otherwise they would not have done ao f must be punished. The same analogy applied to tho receiver of stolen things and the thief. No doubt the police brought this particular cose before the Court on account of the notoriety attached to defendant's house and the character of the inmates._ The Beach were of opinion that not the slightest persecution had be«n shown in the case, and the police were quite acquitted from any such charge. They were willing to accept the statement made by the defence that Hall had dieaosed of his house, and were willing to deal as leniently as possible with him. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-four hours' imprisonment.