CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3977, 23 November 1875, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Tuesday, November 23. (Before Y. Pyke, Esq., and J. S. Hickson, Esq., J.P.’s) Drunkenness.—William Varicoe was fined 5s and costs; David Tuppin, an old offender, ' 40s, or fourteen days. * Fighting. Joseph Ireland and Frank Wilson were charged with conducting themselves on the Kensington road on the 9th inst. in a manner calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. As Ireland did not appear the charge was adjourned till December 1, a warrant to issue for Ireland’s apprehension. ihe Licensing Ordinance Infringed.— Thomas Hancock was charged with allowing prostitutes to gather and remain in his licensed house, the Queen’s Arms Hotel, on the 17th inst. Evidence was adduced by the police to the effect that six prostitutes were drinking in defendant’s house shortly before midnight on the 16th inst. They remained there for some time.—Mr Aldridge, who defended, pointed out that the third section of the Taccusing Ordinance, under which the information was laid, provided that prostitutes should “ not meet together and remain.” Now, there was no evidence of their remaining, which was an essential point.—The Bench were of opinion that the fact of the woman being seen sitting down in defendant’s hotel was sufficient to constitute their “remaining.” The evidence for the prosecution was that the women were prostitues—there was no evidence to the contrarj—and the Bench must hold that defendant must have had some knowledge who they were. A fine of 20a and costs was imposed. Obscene Language. Jane Crawford, an old offender, charged with using obscene lan • guage within the hearing of parsons passing in Walker street, on the 17th inst., was fined 20s and costs, Mr Cook defended. Trivial Charge.—JamesjHammond v. Wm. Nightingale, a trumpery charge of assault, was dismissed.

Impersonating a 'Detective. —Thomas W. Q. Honeywell was charged on remand with assuming the name and description of a member of the police force, while not being connected therewith. The charge was further adjourned until the 25th iust.

Charge of Theft.—Robert Hamilton was charged with stealing, on November 15, from the Police Barracks, a gold Albert guard arid locket of the value of L2, the property of Timothy M'Oarthy. Mr Aldridge prosecuted, and Mr E. Cook defended. —Mr Aldridge proceeded to state that the prosecutor and prisoner were constables in the police foice here together and that in consequence of a complaint made by prosecutor about this very charge prisoner was dismissed from the force, when he was interrupted by the Bench saying that he mu4 confine himself to the case and call evidence/ They could not take cognisance of a private investigation. Mr Aldridge then wished to call Inspector Mallard to prove the result of the inquiry, but the Bench refused to allow him to do so. The following evidence was then adduced: Sergeant-Major Be van deposed that on the 15th inst. prosecutor reported to him the loss of a gold albert chain and locket from the bar-

rack station. He said he lost the yrrtperty in Jure, and then suspected a boy in the barracks of stealing it. He had since, however, seen Constable Hamilton wearing it. Prosecutor described the locket, and witness afterwards accompanied him to prisoners room. From prisoner they obtained a gold locket and chaii which prosecutor identified as his property The locket corresponded with the description witness had received. Piisoner said he had brought the chain from Melbourne, and Constable Dunn could prove it.—Prosecutor, who described himself as “ a gentleman at present, not working anywhere,” deposed that the locket and chain produced were his pioperty. He lost the chain in June last, and reported the loss to Constables Fisher, M’Kernio, ami Moore. He next saw th» chain on the 15 hj insV ; prisoner was then wearing it. Witno-s mentioned the matter to Sergeant Bevan, wh" recovered it from piisoner. By Mr Cook : Witness was discharged from the police force on the 20th inst. —Constable Moore stated that prosecutor had casually mentioned the loss of his chain about two months ago. He did not

describe the chain.—Mr Cook, in addressing" the Court, said he considered that the Bench, after hearing the evidence for , t tliej„ defence, would not only dismiss the charge, but would probably think proper to express an opinion that there was not the slightest reflection on the character of the accused. The chain which accused was charged with stealing had been brought by him from Melbourne. He called Constable Ounn, who deposed that prosecutor, prisoner, and himself occupied the same room in the police barracks. Witness came here with accused from Melbourne. The chain produced (wkich prosecutor had sworn to as his property, and the subject of the present charge) he hj id seen accused wear on the steamer in coming from Melbourne six months ago. He had also frequently seen him wear it while in the police force. John Craig, lithographic printer, said that he saw accused wear a chain, similar to the one produced, on the Umeo on the Bth June last. witnesses having been examined the Bench retired for a few minutes, and on returning inro_ Court, Mr Fyke said: Tie Bench is of opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to justify a conviction. The accuser! is therefore discharged.