CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4095, 11 April 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Tuesday, April 11. (Before V. Pyke, Esq., R.M., and R. Paterson, Esq., J.P.)

Drunkenness.—'Thomas Cross and Robt. Mitchell were each fined ss, with the alter* native of twenty'four hours’ imprisonment. Alleged Assault. —Alice M'Naman, an abandoned character, was charged by Alfred Thompson with assaulting him. Prosecutor not appearing the case was dismissed. ' Rash Conduct.— William Mason, Thos. Thompson, and James Proon, were charged with creating a breach of the peace in Melville street.—James Charles Litzenberger, a German peripatetic pieman and trotterseller, stated that trie three accused assaulted him in the street by kicking hiw basket. Had the kick struck him he would have been ruined for life.—Nixon was fined 20s, in default seven days’ imprisonment $ Thompson, 10s, or three days’; ana Proon, ss, or twenty-four hours’. The Game of Steeplechase. -- Thorium Cunningham and John Grinford were Jointly charged with having, on March 23, at the Forbury race-course, been beneficially interested in a certain scheme, by which prizes of money were gained. Mr Harris defended. Sergeant Anderson stated that he saw defendants with a steeple chase and a number of marbles at - _fche_Forbury course. Twelve marbles at Is eacß were sold, and the person that held the winning one received 9s, the bain*™* accrueing to the owners of the board.—Sergt. Dean and Inspector Mallard gave corroborator® evidence. In cross-examination, the latter said he had only brought the case forward for the purpose of having the legality or otherwise of the game determined. He was not aware that defendant Cunningham had in any way been interested in ms removal from Port Chalmers. His removal attained sufficient notoriety at the time He was not ashamed of anything he then md, nor anything he had overdone ftiuce he had joined the police force. The moment he felt ashamed of anything he did he would immediately resign. —Mr Pyke: You are too seriously.—lnspector Mallard; I feel it seriously.—Mr Pyke :Mr Harris Appears to have been instructed by one of the defendants that there is some private animus between you and him.—The Inspector; Not at all. I trust lam above that.-Mr Harris; I am instructed that that is the case, and there has been some bad feeling on Mr , Mallard s part in consequence. —The Inspector ; I trust lam above bad feeling. I have befriended Cunningham, and Cutmingham knows it. Cunningham ; You have not.-Mr Hams submitted that there was no proof that defendants were beneficially interested. The men were justified in them conduct by a previous decision on the same game.—Mr Pyke said that he heard the previous - case. That was a totally different charge to this one—then the men were summoned under the Vagrant Act for playing a certain game, and the Bench expressed no opinion as to the unlawfulness or otherwise of it. The fact of their being accessories was neither mentioned by the Bench nor the Inspector, or they might then have been fined. The case was on a point raised by Mr Stout, counsel for the defence, that they were not playing themfu ow °k ar S e was brought under the Town and Country Police Ordinance, of being beneficially interested in agame bywhich prizes or money were gained. The men might have been misled by the former derision, and on the other hand the police were perJustified in bringing the case under a different .aspect to get the legality of the gameMecidea. The Bench refused to believe that there had been anything like personal animus in the action of the officer in the discharge of his duty. There was only presump, tive proof of the menbeingjbeneficiauy interestedm the fact of their selling marbles, and. the Bench declined to believe that they had gone out with a virtuous motive, Or for the purposes of enjoyment. The case would be met by a nominal penalty of 6s and costs each.—Defendants wished to give a contri butiou to the Benevolent Institution, and the Bench called attention to tile want of a poor

[Before H. S. Fish, Emn, and R, Patewon, Esq,, J.P.’s)

Alleged Rape.— James Prescott was purged, on remand, with this offence ontho person of Eliza Ann Prescott, his niece, seven years old. Mr#. R. Chapman <E fended.—Helen Prescott, wife of Qeorce Prescott, living at the Kaikorai, said thaton Wednesday, March 29, she examined her niece, and sent her to Dr Morphy.—Cross* examined : My niece said to me that the boys had been with her, but she did not like to tell me for fear that she would not be lefe out to play. On March 26, the day attar the alleged offence, I bathed my nieoe, and - saw no signs, whatever upon her iff any injury. Rran the staWento she made, I did not believe the ttoiir lS W (reused) having abused her,-* - Uttie Son March 80. SfSmSfiSi a sh .® v bee “ «>lled upon by, somogirla s with whom she had beennlaylngV He Sen »a “lit’ but f her uncle hud , „ \vj afleged offence.- In dew Z witnett said he had nodoubt

been tampered with, but he did not believe her story with reference to the accused.— Mr Chapman' submitted that it was not a case for committal to the Supreme Court, a vrima fade case not being made out. Corroborative evidence was essentially necessary where the principal witness had at times been telling a falsehood, but the corroborative evidence in this case did not in the least degree affect accused, in fact, the only relation to him was where it was in his favor. If the Bench concluded that accused had committed the alleged offence, that conclu- * sion must be come to in the face of the girl’s admission in the witness-box that time after lime she had been telling untruths. He (the learned counsel) asked the Bench to put the interpretation on it that the girl had shifted the blame from some other person to accused, and that in attempting to make out a consistent statement she had failed. All the witnesses had come to the conclusion that the offence had been committed, but that the blame had been shifted. The story was so, inconsistent that he (Mr Chapman) trusted that the Bench would not send prisoner to gaol for three months, in order that his case might go to a jury.— The Bench said that possibly there might be considerable force in the arguments urged—and very well urged too—by counsel for the defence, but the Bench were clearly of opinion that their duty was to send the case for consideration before a higher tribunal. It was not for them to weigh the evidence too closely, or to speculate on the probability or otherwise of the jury finding prisoner guilty; Prisoner was committed for trial, the question of bail to be decided tomorrow.