R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1758, 11 August 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-MONDAY.

Before W, Lowes, J.P.

Collier v Ewington.—Adjourned case. Bis Worship stated that in this case which turned on a question of boundaries,' ho should require further evidence before giving his decision. Mr Beard applied for a date to be fixed by which the evidence must be produced. Ho sitd he would have a survey'. made of -the property and submit it to the Court.

Mr Bunny said the question was not one of survey but one of title. : The Court said it would not go into a question of title. The case was adjourned till Tuesday week. (Before H. S, Wahdell, R.M., and W. Lowes, J.P.)

Police v 0. P. Skipper.—Obstruotihg the police in: the discharge of their duty.. . The defendant pleaded decidedly not guilty. '.'_■ .■•-'■ The police requested that the word " incite" be added to tho information. The- Court said that ' another .infor : mation would'have'to be laid- if the charge.of "inciting" was brought on. Sergeant M'Ardle. deposed that on Thursday the 7th inst, he proceeded to the Club Hotel to make enquiries with respect.-to the alleged .larceny of a watch. A Mr. Boatfield had bought the watch. Witness asked him to show him the watch. Boatfield handed witness tho watch, Mr Skipper came into the room and took hold of the watch, dragged it from his hand, and called upon Mr Boatfield to take the receipt for.the watch out of the hands of the. witness, He was obliged to take the watch back from Mr Skipper hy .force, • Had it not been for. witness'having another constable to assist him he believed he would have fared badly. ■ Mr Skipper; Did you ask me-to come into che room and have ■ the matter settled ?

Witness: No.; you came in as an intruder,

Are you aware that I was acting for Mr Boatfield?

No, I am not! Where did you get the receipt from 1 From Mr Boatfield. Did yon not Bnatch' the receipt out of my hands 1

~ I did not I Did Mr Boatfield give you the receipt 1 Hehanded it across the table to me. Did he not hand it to me and say " Hook to you f He did not, " ' Did you think you had got- any right to that receipt 1 Yes! - ■"■ . :i . Did I tell you at the time that you .. had no business to interfere ?" No! '"' Did I not say sol Did.l not say you were exceeding your duty? You may have said so! Constable";Harnett stated that he ao-v companied Sergeant MoArdle. to the Club Hotel. They' went into a tap room. Mr Boatfield handed the watch to the Sergeant and Mr Skipper wanted to see the" watch. Sergeant McArdle placed it in his harids, and he objected to returning it, snd. warned Boatfield not to let the Sergeant have it. A • struggle ensued between- the Sergeant , and Mr Skipper for the possession of the watch, which was ended by Mr Skipper giving it up. \ Mr Skipper: Did.the Sergeant take the watch from me? Yes, after you broke your promise to give it back,' After I had seen to ' Boatfield, I turned round and saw you on the sofa and the Sergeant's hands

on you. ..,...■:. Did Mr Boatfield produce a receipt for the watch i. Yes. Someone had a receipt. 1 believe Mr Skipper had the receipt in the first instance. I don't know whether the Sergeant obtained it through Boatfield or' took it off the table.

Did the Sergeant snatch it out of my hand? I did not see him do so. You cautioned Boatfield not to give up the receipt. The Sergeant took it against Biatfield's consent. Was .there any disturbance? A slight disturbance. Did yon consider there was any necessity forlocking any one up ? Yes, strictly speaking, because you obstructed the police. The Court: The obstruction was with the watch? ':*...: Yes; Mr Skipper put the watch behind his back. ' Sergeant McArdle: In what state were Mr' Skipper arid Mr Boatfield? They were the worse for liquor, •William Boatfield, called.by Mr Skipper, stated that he gave the receipt and watch into Mr Skipper's hands as his solicitor before the arrival of the police, When the police came Mr Skipper called hire inside. He told the Sergeant he could have the watch, but the receipt was his own private property. Mr Skipper: Did I tell you there was some dispute ? Yes. Did I ask you to show it to the Sergeant ?. You did. When I first met you who had ths receipt? You had! For what purpose ] . To give to the sergeant! Had I any interest in this matter ? Not that I am aware of! The Court (addressing Mr Skipper, who was in a state of inebriety) : I think I ought to' have committed you lit an earlier stage of this case for coiiteni|it of Court for appearing in the eviiieut condition in which you now are. I adjourn the case till three and leave you in custody of the police till then. Mr Skipper was then forcibly removed from the box by the police.

A COMBAT. M. West and J. D, Thompson pleaded guilty to committing a breach of the peace by fighting in the street on Saturday last, and were fined 10s each, OBSCENE EXPOSURE. Arthur Carey, who did not appear, was charged with obscene exposure in a railway carriage between Haywards' station and Silver Stream; George Schwartz proved the case, and said accused was slightly under the influence of liquor. Mr Brook, of the railway department, was travelling by the train and corroborated the evidence of the previous witness, His Worship said no wantonness was shewn on the part of accused, but as a preventative and example he would award seven days' imprisonment. A. warrant was issued for the arrest of accused. J. 0. Ingram v Rapp and Hare.— Defendants were charged with obstructing the thoroughfare by exposing goods for sale ou the footpath, in contravention of the by-laws, Defendants pleaded guilty, and were fined 20s and costs -7s. Same v. W. Berry; same v L. J. Hooper; same v, H, Lawson; each ot whom was fined 20s and costs, Ingram v J, Thompson,—Defendant was charged with having threo unregistered dogs in his possession. Witness said the dogs were in defendant's-possession, for. over three months, . Defendant said' the inspector was told by him that the dogs were not his property.. . He could not get rid of them, He had used his best endeavors to get rid'of them. His own dogs were all licensed, . Defendant asked His Worship to give him an order to destroy the dogs, as being someone else's property he would be liable. His Worship drew attention to the clauses of the Act authorising local bodies ,to destroy or sell any Buch dogs, His Worship recommended that the prosecutor should arrange with the defendant' to destroy the dogs, and the case could stand over meanwhile.

In the following cases the defendants were each fined 5s and costs for having unregistered- dogs:—George Rutherford, Wm, Gillespie, Arthur Harford, Edward Guest, and:A, J. Hathaway.

SLY GROG SELLING. Police v John Carrol.—Breach of the Licensing Act. Mr Bunny for defendant„Mr Dryer interpreted. Thor Grog Jacobsen said he knew accused, ; and. did, not remember Saturday, Ist July last, but was at Carroll's three'or four day's ago aud also three or four weeks ago, He knew Martin Baesen, and was in defendant's house with him. He had one class of rum to

drink. Did not recollect Bacsen having drink, Did not see anyone elso pay for drinks. Did not see half a sovereign paid for drinks, Did not recollect whether he was' present on more than one occasion withßaesen.- Was not at Carroll's house with Kite or Mcintosh. Sergeant McArdle did not thinkit worth while to detain"the Court" with this witness. ■. •:'•'.' Martin Baesen'called said he resided at Mauriceville. • Knew Defendant and last witness, He going with the last witness to deten-' dant's house on tho Ist of July, antrtfi bad N two drinks of rum. The last witness gave a half sovereign in payment of the same to Mrs Carrol, and he got 7s 6d'change. Kite was also present, .;.;,.. In answer to Mr Bunny, witness said this was on Saturday July 12 He was a lodger in the house of Jac'obs«L Had hot been engaged by any onSJp*" get up. these, cases. Mr Elliotte had not offered to give him any money if he brought a conviction in any oases of sly grog selling. _ He did not himself directly report this case to the police. Had not been promised any reward if he could bring home a conviction against the accused. The 'change was« given by Mrs Carrol, who said; Here's 7s 6d, and I owe you 6d, He was present in the store; at the time with Jacobsen.. By Sergt.. McArdle': : The. -half sovereign was paid over for four drinks. He had two and Jacobsen two, and the change 7s 6d was handed, back by Mrs Carrol, who said she would owe 6d. Nothing was said about any goods at the time. T. G. Jacobsen, re-called, was cautioned by the Court not to allow a desire to screen a friend to affect his evidence. He, however, adhereito his previous statements. ; The Court granted the application of the police for an adjournment On tjft understanding that further evidence importance could be produced. . Mr Bunny expressed his regret as his client lived at a distance, and the. i expense of attending again would bej serious, i The accused was then charged on the second information with selling grog • on the 13th of July. T. 6. Jacobsen, sworn, deposed,that : he was on the premises of the accused between 8 and 9 a.m." on the day.in question. " ' f The Sergeant a t this stage withdrew, • with the consent of Court, both infors mations with the object of laying'fresh 1 ones, a Police v. W. Dorset.—Breach of 1 Licensing Act.. , Mr Bunny appeared for the defene dant.

6. Kronais was called and asked for

his expenses. : , The Court informed .him that fee should have wade the demand before ho was subpcened. Jl G. Kroniis and Eaesen gave denoe to the effect that they called ut. Mrs Dorset's and asked for some beer. Mrs Dorset said she had no beer aijjfc she gave them some whiskey. Baesen gave Kronais a shilling to pay for it. They afterwards had some, more whiskey. Mr Bunny submitted that there was no proof of a sale having taken place. The Court held there was a transaction in the nature of a sale. < Mrs Dorset, wife of the defendant, called by Mr Bunny deposed that on the day in question, Baesen and' Ki-onias asked for medicine and she gave them s, small drop of whiskey. They complained of it being too little, and she gave them more. Kronais dealt with their store. On Friday the 18th he got a shilling's worth of , tobacco and did not pay for it. ' On the 21st she understood the money wu& paid for the tobacco. She would JgL have given four glasses of whiskey W a shilling. (A laugh). To the Court—When the shilling was paid no mention was ma"de of the tobacco. ••"■■■' TIL. ! l ii ,i , . . » .'.'

The court held that a breach of the Act had been committed, but that the circumstances we're "somewhat exceptional. It would take these into consideration by inflicting a small penalty, but it would, desire the case to be taken as a warning, The penalty would be a fine of forty shillings and costs.