POLICE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 301, 18 December 1917, Page 4

POLICE COURT.

■ (Before Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender, who had gone round to the police station last night to make a complaint, and, being found to be too drunk to explain himself, was locked up. was fined 5/. A MAIN. TRUNK INCIDENT. A country 'resident 1 wfl _h_rged that on November 14 be travelled on the train between Frankton and Auckland without having previously paid his proper fare. The circumstances were that after a Waikato train from Auckland had left Mercer - defendant was found on the train without a ticket. The inspector who accosted him was told that he was going to pay, and checked the train. Defendant paid the fare from Mercer, and when asked why he hadn't paid the guard, who had already been through the train, he said he had had a ticket to Mercer, and hadn't paid further because he expected to pick up friends at Mercer, and didn't know till then whether or not he would go further. The inspector said it was a night train, and the guards did not wish to harass the passengers by continuously going through the train, consequently the onus was put on the passengers, and if the matter nad not been noticed then it would have passed. To 'Mr. Hackett, witness said the tickets to Frankton were collected before the train got to Mercer, and if defendant had said he 'had had a ticket to Frankton, and it had been taken, he might have got through, but the guard would have had to account for a ticket short. The guard said that he tried the doors of the lavatories as he went through the train after Mercer. The defence was that defendant had to meet a man at Mercer station and remain at Mercer with him. He could not find the man there, and went back on the train to proceed to Taumarunui. He was in a lavatory for a time, and didn't see the guard, and was under the impression that the inspector was the guard when.he pro*:ered the fare. Defendant gave evidence to this effect, and was supported to some extent by the man whom he had appointed to meet at Mercer. His Worship remarked that by by-law 10 of the railway regulations the passenger had to notify the guard before reaching the destination place of his ticket, of his intention to go further. It was defendant's business to have been on the look-out for the guard. He may have innocently missed the guard, but •by missing him he broke the regulations, and would be convicted and fined £2 and 43/ costs. OFF THE STAGE. Carmen Rayner, music-hall artiste, applied for an order of maintenance against her husband William Rayner, actor- The. defendant, by letter, applied for an adjournment of the hearing, as be was touring in the South, but in view, of complainant's projected return to Sydney her evidence was taken. She stated that she married defendant in Sydney in 1912, and they lived together, but both carried on with their profession, with a view to saving. Defendant, she said, went on tour with a revue company to New Zealand, and three months ago she came to New Zealand in a vaudeville turn with her sister. She met her husband here, and discovered that lie was drinking excessively, and also that he was living with another woman. She told him she would apply for maintenance, and he offered her £2, though later he said he would not allow her anything. He had a twelve months' contract at £6 a week. She was at present getting _4 a week, out of which she had to \)ay°3o/ a week board, send 20/ for her mother's maintenance, and to buy stage 'dresses and mu6ic. She also lost time oil' at intervals. His Worship adjourned tho hearing for a month, and ordered defendant to°pay £2 a week in the meantime.