CITY POLICE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4219, 4 September 1876, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, September 4, (Before A. Mercer, Esq., and J. Black Esq., J.P’s.)

Drunkenness. John Coghill, Joseph Daley, John Hannah, John M'Allister, and John Kelly were all fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment; William Forrest and Samuel Baird 20s, or forty-eight hours’; Anne Williams ss, or twenty-four hours ; Catherine Cahill 40s, or seven days’. Cahill was further charged with heino an habitual drunkard, but was discharged for this offence on her promise not to come back again. Thomas Johnston appeared in answer to his bail, but as prisoner was drunk he was ordered to be detained in custody. Illegally on the Premises. James lattersall and Alexandria Perrier were charged with being illegally on the premises of Eliza Blackford, St. Andrew street, on the 3rd inat.—Mrs Blackford was in gaol, and prisoners had gained admission to the house by breaking open one of the back windows.—They were each sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment. Stealing a Tumbler. —John Kelly was charged with stealing a tumbler, tbe property of James Gumming, publican.—Prisoner was arrested for drunkenness, and a tumbler bearing prosecutor’s name was found on his person.—He was sent to gaol for seven days.

An Absconding Prisoner. Charles Edward Haughton was placed in the dock charged by the police with attempting to leave the Colony while a prisoner on bail remanded to appear at Wellington on Sept. 7.—lnspector Mallard explained that from certain circumstances that came to the knowledge of the police information was laid.— Mr Black: Were the police satisfied that there was an attempt to abscond ’—The Inspector ; The police were so satisfied, or believed they were so satisfied. I think your Worships will see the information says “had reasonable cause to suspect and doth suspect, and having had that reason to "aspect the information was laid. I don’t know whether the sureties are present—perhaps they may wish to say something in the matter.—Mr Mercer ; Do you wish him remanded to Wellington’—The Inspector: lour Worships may think the conduct of the police has been somewhat peculiar considering the accused has been admitted

to bail to appear in Wellington on Thursday. Your Worships see to-day is Monday, and it is almost a matter of impossibility that he could be there on Thursday. Mr Black: The last t?me the matter was before the Court I think you said a constable was on his way here from Wellington.-—The Inspector : I did. But you will also remember that the last time the case was before the Court I said that the police obviously objected to bail. Your Wflp&ipa took the responsibility of admitting prisoner to bad, and of course there was no necessity for a constable coming down from Welling, ton. All the proceedings have been taken in Wellington. —Mr Mercer said the Bqnch were of opinion that prisoner should be remanded to Wellington in legal custody.— Tlio Inspector i I don t know wketlier your Worships would like to ask the bondftmen anything.—Mr Scaulan gatf he did not wish to withdraw his bond. It appeared that he was misinformed on Saturday as to accused’s intentions otherwise he would not have asked to have his bond withdrawn. From what he had since learned he ! elieved that accused had no intention of running away ? e ~ )e \*® ve d the Wellington was sailing for Wellington to-day.—Mr Black; There “JUSt have uee» some reason for the action of the police in arresting the accused—they must have been under the impression that he was endeavoring to abscond.—The Inspector t As 1 said before, I can put evidence m the box to show that we had reasonable cause to believe that he was going to abscond, otherwise that information would never Lave been laid. I think Mr Scanjau has pretty well explained tbe matter. The Bench said they WPldd the matter of bajl b«'Pt ; e leading' the Court.—lnspector Mallard; There is one matter that baa Just

occurred to me. The Wdlington it advertised to sail on WednesdayTnstead ef today, as stated by Mr Scanlon. I merely mention this to show that the police have not used harsh measures in doing what they have done.—At 2.30, prisoner was again brought before the Court, and the Bench stated that, after considering the matter, they refused to accept bait Prisoner would be remanded to Wellington, in custody, to appear there within eight days.

Charge against a Post Office Servant. —John Thomas Horan was charged, on remand, with stealing from the Post Office an ‘ Illustrated London News ’ and a ‘ New Zealand Saturday Advertiser,” of the value of Is 3d, the property of the PostmasterGeneral. The Crown Prosecutor appeared to prosecute ; Mr Nation defended.— Air Haggitt stated that, under the 57th section of the Act, the offence of stealing a newspaper by a post-office official while in course of transit was a misdemeanor. It would therefore be the duty of the Beach, if the evidence disclosed a snfficientjprinid/acic case, to send the case to another tribunal, where it might be dealt with as the. merits of the case deserved. The reason that punishment in cases of this nature 'was so severe was not on account of the value of the property, but because the accused was placed in a position of trust, and chances of detection were so limited—in point of fact, when one was caught flagrante delicto that the punishment should act as a deterrent to others. Evidence would be given that the instance complained of was not a solitary or isolated one, inasmuch as a whole file of newspapers with the addresses tom off was found in the accused’s possession. On being asked to account for them, ho did not deny that the papers were improperly in his possession, and the only defence he purported to set up was that he did not know be was doing any harm. The principal evidence against the accused would be bis own admissions.—Archibald Barr, Chief-Postmaster of Otago, deposed that accused was employed as a clerk in the mail-room in Dunedin. Ho was transferred from the Auckland Post Office to the Dunedin office in March last. His duty was to stamp and sort letters and newspapers. On August 18, a'packet, containing four newspapers was brought to witness by Mr Price He sent for accused! and told him that four newspapers had been found wrapt up with his slippers, and pointed out to him the serious nature of the inference to be drawn therefrom. Accused denied that he had placed the slippers in the papers, or that he knew anything of .them.—MFNation objected to the evidence, and Mr Mercer requested Mr Haggitt to confine himself to the charge of stealing the two newspapers, the subject of the proceedings.—Mr Haggitt pointed out that all conversations between prisoner and prosecutorlehdingto the charge being laid were admissible. —-Witness’ proceeded to state that he called together all the clerks and asked them if they l had S laced the slippers in the papers. They enied all knowledge of the matter. He then called accused into his office and told him that he would have to report the matter to the Postmaster-General. Accused replied that it was a breach of confidence at any rate. The paper produced, an * Illustrated London News’ of April 8 last, bears the stamp of the Dunedin Post-office, “ missent to Dunedin.” The address has been torn off. The paper now produced is a copy of the ‘New Zealand Advertiser’ of April 29 It is addressed Mr Walter Oamcross, bookseller, Itching street, Oamaru. There is no stamp upon it. The file of papers produced (‘lllustrated Loudon News’) appear to have passed through a post-office. The addresses have been torn off. Cross-ex-amined ; I assume that all the papers came through the Dunedin Post-office. I took his words “a breach of confidence” to 1 mean that he partially admitted his guilt.— Wm. Henry Price, superintendent of the mm department, said that accused was employed under him. On August 22, accompanied by Detectives Neil and Henderson, he went to accused’s residence. Detective Neil explained that he had a search warrant to search accused’s house for newspapers. Amongst others he found the whole of the newspapers produced. The detective called the attention of the accused to the paper bearing the stamp “ mis-seut to Dunedin.” He said no doubt it was wrong; he took it from the Post-office to read it, intending to return it. With regard to the ‘ Satu&ay Advertiser,’ he said, “I took this from the detained paper case for wastepaper. He said he got the illustrated papers from Mrs Severn in Auckland, and they must have been sent under cover to him. Witness had not seen any papers come under cover to him It was quite impossible complete files as those produced could have come under cover to him without witness knowing it . Detective Neil deposed that he went ’to accused s premises, accompanied bv Mr Price, on August 22. He saw the accused there and told him he had a search warrant Witness found the whole of the papers in a box in his room. Witness questioned him about one of the papers. Be said he took it from the Post Office intending to read it and that no doubt it was wrong. The Saturday Advertiser ’ he said he took from the detained post office box for waste paper. -A number of clerks in the Post Office were examined as to the custom with regard to papers not properly addressed.—The Bench dismissed the case, holding that while accused might have shown seme indiscretion in taking the papers home in the manner in which he had, his conduct evidenced no felonious intent.