POLICE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 17, 21 January 1902, Page 4

POLICE COURT.

(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr H. W. Brabant, S.M.)

Drunkenness. —For this offence two male first offenders were convicted and discharged with a caution.

Breach of Infants' Life Protection Act. —A woman named Elizabeth Bates was charged that on December 17th, 1901, being the holder of a license under the Infants' Life Protection Act she did fail to enter in her record book the particulars required in respect to Olive Myrtle Ladbrook, received by her into her home. Mr Fitzherbert, who appeared for the defendant, entered a plea of guilty, and asked the Bench to deal leniently with his client, who had had a lot of worry lately. The Sub-Inspector asked His Worship to inflict a fine, as the defendant had shown carelessness. She had informed the police matron that the child's mother had gone up the country, and that she (the defendant) could get no particulars about the child. The Sub-Inspec-tor thought that defendant had been careless in not getting' particulars from the mother, or in not getting the signature of the person who handed the child over. His Worship in. nicted a fine of 20/ and costs.

A Young Offender.—A boy named Harold Walter Parker, aged fourteen, was charged with stealing on January sth the sum of £13 2/ of the moneys of Charles Ratjen. Mr Martin, who appeared for the defence, said tSat after hearing the boy's story he had advised hixn to plead guilty. The boy had used, the money to buy a bicycle. He had previously borne an excellent character, and he would ask Kis Worship to adjourn the case for a week in order to get the Probation Officer's report. If this was favourable, as he anticipated it would be, he would ask His Worship to deal with the boy under the First Offenders' Act. His Worship agreed to this course.

Breach of Factories Act. —Francis Littlejohn was charged that on December 30th, 1901, being the occupier of a factory, she did make defa.ult in a full and prompt payment of money to one Louisa Eosser. Mr Heed, who appeared for the defence, pleaded guilty, and said that his client was not aware of the change in the law, which compelled girls learning the dressmaking trade to be paid." His Worship imposed a fine of 1/ for each day of the time during which $H_ money was not paid. Defendant was further charged that on December 14 she did employ two girls, Ethel Watkins and Ada Buchanan, up to the hour of 1.50 on Saturday afternoon. Defendant pleaded not guilty to these last two charges, the defence being that the girls were not working. The case was eventually adjourned for the production of another witness.