RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1252, 20 January 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

This Day. (Before M. Price, Esq., K.M.] DRUNKENNESS. William Thompson, who had been in the Hospital, was brought up on the above charge, and of being incapable in Gladstone road on the 7th inst. Constable Wilson was called, and proved the case. Sergeant Bullen stated that the prisoner, after being brought to the lockup he was suffering from delirium tremens, so he had him removed to the Hospital. The expenses at the Hospital came to £4. Prisoner had nothing to say. His Worship fined prisoner 10s, or 24 hours imprisonment. A separate order was then made to the effect that the prisoner pay the sum of £4, in default of immediate payment, a distress warrant to issue, and in default of distress, 14 days imprisonment with hard labor. RArs. Frank McDonald was brought up on remand, charged with rape. Sergeant Bullen said the warrrnt had not yet arrived. He had received a telegram stating that the warrant had been sent to Opotiki, and from there had been sent back to Auckland, so it would be some days before it could reach here. He would there- | fore ask for a remand for eight days. His Worship said it was rather hard that the man should be remanded from time to time in consequence of the fault of the police in not sending the warrant. He would remand the accv.sed for eight days, but the police must understand that he would not grant any further remand. Sergt. Eullen said he would not ask for another remand. The accused was therefore remanded to the 27th instant, and if the warrant did not arrive by that date he would be discharged. ASSAULT. Mary Dorrington v. George Brocklebank. —This was a charge brought by Mary Dorrington against George Brocklebank, a young lad, for beating her little boy, William Dorrington, five years of age on the 17th iustant. The offence was admitted. The boy's father was in Court. The defendant stated that the little hoy I had cheeked him, and he had hit him. His Worship said he had never been in a place where the young lads gave so much trouble. The way to get at the lads was through their father’s pockets. He would fine the boy 20s, and costs Bs, or in default a distress warrant to issue, and in default of distress, 7 days imprisonment. The fine was paid. Larceny. Walter Knights v. Ale. Skipworth. This was a case in which the defendant was charged on the information of Walter Knights, fruiterer, with the larceny from his orchard at Makaraka on the 17th inst., of certain plums of the value of 2d. The defendant admitted the charge. Walter Knights stated that he was the complainant in this case. On the 17th inst., he was near his orchard at Makaraka, and saw the defendant jump over the fence. He followed him, and saw him pull some plums off a plum tree. He (defendant) had a handfull of plums. The plums were valued at 2d. He had seen the boy there before, but had not caught him. His Worship said that he intended to deal with this case under the 36th section of the Larceny Act of 1867. He would ask the C'erk of the Court to read it. Mr Greenwood then read the clause which was as follows :— Whosoever shall steal or shall destroy or damage with intent to steal any plant root fruit or vegetable production growing in any ga.dea orchard pleacure ground nursery ground hothouse greenhouse or conservatory shall on conviction thereof before a Justice of the Peace at the discretion of the Justice either be committed to a ly public gaol there to be imprisoned only or to be imprisoned and kepi to hard labour for any term not exceeding six months o.' else shall forfeit and pay over and above the value of the article or articles so stolen or the amount of the injury : done such sum of money not exceeding ' twenty pounds as the Justice sha’l seem meet | a -d whosoever having been convicted of any such offence either against this or any former Act shall aft-.wards commit any of the offences in this section before mentioned shall be guilty of felony and being convicted therof shall be guilty of felony and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as in the case of simp’e larceny. He might state again, as he had done in a previous case that he had never been in a place where co many of these cases had come under his notice. He did not intend to order a whipping in this case, but he intended to make the boy's father pay a very heavy fine. It was the only way of dealing with these cases. He had been told that Gisborne children were excellent scholars, and got on well at school, but he could not answer for their morality, as it certainly did I keep pace with their learning. It was monstrous to suppose that people were to take great pains with their gardens and orchards that they should have them destroyed, and fruit stolen therefrom by a number of boys. He knew the boys father to be a most respectable man, and he was sorry for him, at the same time he could not allow the case to pass over. He felt bound to make an example of this case. He would fine the boy £lO, or in default one month’s imprisonment with hard labour in Gisborne Gaol, and he hoped that this would act as a warning to the other young boys in Gisborne. The £lO includad the 2d the value of the fruit.