This just in from one of our Dorchester correspondents: If you live along Neponset Avenue near St. Ann's and own a young, slender black cat, but it seems to be missing, you might want to check with the Emmerson Animal Hospital - our correspondent reports the cat, which had a collar but no tag, was hit by a car and that her boyfriend, who spotted the injured kitty, picked it up and brought it to the vet.

The Supreme Judicial Court today overturned a teenager's conviction on charges of delinquency and resisting arrest because the kid was not actually under arrest while being chased by a cops who had pursued him and an acquaintance in what turned out to be a stolen car.

On June 12, 2006, a Stoneham police officer began following a suspicious looking car - whose driver promptly tried to evade him before crashing into bushes in a condo parking lot. After the crash, the two occupants ran away. The first officer lost them, but another spotted the passenger, a teenager:

He commenced a chase on foot and yelled, "Stop, police. Stop, police." Ponzo followed the juvenile as he climbed a wall. The juvenile became trapped between a building with a locked door, a fence, and Ponzo. The Commonwealth presented no evidence that the juvenile offered any resistance to his apprehension once he was cornered, which supports an inference that, at that point, the juvenile cooperated with his arrest.

At the teen's trial, prosecutors argued he was effectively "seized" or essentially under arrest, as soon as the cop turned on his blue lights and began pursuing the car. The court, however, said that didn't apply to the passenger, who had been given no indication he was actually under arrest:

The juvenile argues that the arrest did not occur until he was trapped. We agree. Here, there was no testimony about the officers' intentions when they pursued the fleeing juvenile. Although it was later discovered that the vehicle in which the juvenile had been riding was stolen, the officers did not testify to knowing this at the time. Moreover, we conclude that the officers did not communicate to the juvenile an intent to arrest him. ... Moreover, once Ponzo began to pursue the juvenile on foot, even if there was an intent to arrest, in the circumstances of this case, Ponzo's yelling, "Stop, police," was not enough to communicate to the juvenile an intent to arrest to him, as opposed to communicating that Ponzo wanted him to stop.

Complete ruling.

The Boston Licensing Bar decides Thursday what to do about alleged incidents at Hurricane O'Reilly's, 150 Canal St., one involving a man who says he was held by a bouncer while other patrons punched and bit him, the other involving three teenagers who got soused using older friends' licenses.

"It's becoming a troubled premise," Boston Police Sgt. John Devaney told the licensing board. "We're down there every weekend ... Young kids, fights, disorder."

Jack Brewer of Norwood told the board that he was "having a good time" dancing at the bar the night of March 13 - along with all the other drunken people celebrating St. Patrick's Day. He said he was leaving the dance floor when his left arm was grabbed by a bouncer - who proceeded to hold him while other people bit him in the shoulder and punched him. He was taken to Mass. General, where, he said, he had to get stitches and a tetanus shot. He said he also had to undergop physical therapy for 16 weeks to regain the full use of his arm.

Club officials, however, said Brewer was involved in only a very brief scuffle on the dance floor and that both he and a group of five or six people from East Boston were escorted out before things could get out of hand.

In a separate incident on May 16, Det. Kevin McGill said, he and Devaney were doing inspections of bars in the North Statino area when they heard yelling and saw what appeared to be a Hurricane O'Reilly's bouncer standing over some guy lying on the ground.

The guy on the ground got up and began walking toward the Haymarket T stop. McGill said he caught up with the guy and two female acquaintances and eventually learned all three were underage. The guy, bleeding from a cut over one eye, was 18 and using the license of somebody nine years older and several inches taller, he told the board, adding he didn't even look 18, let alone 27.

At that point, police asked bar workers to clear the premises and shut down for the night in case there were any other underage drinkers inside, McGill said.

Bar managers acknowledged they should not have let the trio in and that they fired the bouncer who held the kid to the ground, even though they said the kid probably deserved the treatment. "The kid was a punk on the ground saying he was going to go back in and take care of business," one manager said. "He was an idiot."

Board member Michael Connolly, noting the bar's owners own seven other bars in Boston, said the incident should never have happened, given their collective expertise. Managers said they have since done staff retraining.