CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4132, 25 May 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Thursday, May 25. (Before E. ff. Ward, Esq, and A. Mercer, . Esq., J.P.’s.)

Drunkenness. —Abraham Aarons, John Lynch, and George Breut, charged with being drunk yesterday, were let off in consequence of the holiday ; Mary Forbes was fined ss, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment, M argaret Ferrier 20s. or seven days’. Prisoner Forbes was further fined 40s, in default three days’ imprisonment, for using obscene language. Riotous Conduct.— John M'Laren, a well-known politician, who describes himself as the working men’s champion, was charged with using obscene language and with conducting himself in a manner calculated to provoke a Weach of the peace in Princes street at 10.15 p.m. on May 24th. Constable Shirley proved the charge. Prisoner was using violent language as to the treatment received by the liberty-men of the Nymph at the Carnival, and was conducting himself in a very riotous manner.— Accused complained that he had been molested by the police and said he intended to proceed against the constable for assault. —He was fined 20s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment, for using obscene language ; and 10s on the second charge. Stealing from an Hotel. —Emily Zirk was charged by Ann Diamond, hotelkeeper, with stealing on or about April 1 an antimacassar of the value of 17s 6d. Mr G. B. Barton defended.—Prosecutor deposed that the antimacassar produced was hers. She missed it from the sitting-room of the Globe Hotel about the date named.—Sarah Jardine, in the employ of the last witness, recognised the antimacassar produced as one which was missed from the sofa in the parlor of the Globe Hotel. The uig! it before it was missed accused was in the hotel with a lady friend. Witness served them with drinks, for which accused paid. They were in the parlor in which the antimacassar was.—Witness was subjected to a searching cross-examination by Mr Barton, but he failed to materially shake her testimony.—Detective Henderson found the antimacassar produced, and recognised by prosecutrix as her property, in accused’s house. Accused stated that she worked it coming out from Home. She also denied ever having been in the Globe Hotel.—Mr Barton asked that the search-warrant be produced, arguing that the detective was illegally on accused’s premises, but the Bench held it was not necessary.— This was the case for the prosecution.—Mr Barton asked that the prisoner and her husband be allowed to give evidence under the Evidence Act.—The Bench pointed out that such could only be done

tv' tbc" o tvvs ? T)'' T taltv, or a j-ocaaiaiy ptui.Uy \ vh li.r.ri-snunvnt in the discretion of the Justices. In a case of theft imprisonment was the only option where the charge was proved.-Mr Barton then subnutted that the evidence did not support the charge.—The Bench thought differently, and sentenced accused to one month’s imprisonment, with hard labor. Another Charge. '- mily Zirk was further charged with stealing, in April, from the Kensington Hotel, one scraper, a s 1 Ivor rang, and a Lat, the property ol Timothy Hayes, publican.—Mr Barton argued that the search warrant did not empower the police in apprehending accused on finding tin- g >ods in her possession. She should have been charged on information, and had been improperly arrested. There was no evidence that accused had stolen the goods; they were found in her husband’s house, and were accordingly his property. The Bench had a doubt, and gave accu ed the benefit of it.—lnspector Mallard asked that the Bench express an opinion |n order to protect Hayes.—Tue Bench were of opinion that the police had acted perfectly correctly in every possible way. The matter was almost beyond suspicion -in fact, accused had just escapea.—An application, made by Mr Barton for a rehearing in Diamond’s case, on the ground that he had just learned that evidence could be produced .to honestly account for the possession of .the goods by accused, was refused, the Bench holding that the Act did not apply to felonies.—Mr Barton gave notice of his intention to appeal against the Bench’s ruling as to the admissibility of evidence.—Mr Ward: I dont think that would do you very much good. The ruling of the Bench is that clause 5 of the new Act does not apply in cases where there can be imprisonment only.—Mr Barton would put his appeal into writing during the day and have the point tested.

Assaulting the Police.— Thomas Allern, changed with resisting Constable Porter while locking-up another prisoner, was fined 20s, in de amt three days’ imprisonment.