POLICE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 26, 1 February 1926, Page 5

POLICE COURT.

(Before Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M.

NOT A HABIT OF HIS.

"It's not a habit of mine to use obscene language. A follow was cadging money for beer from mc, and brushed him aside," said Chadlie Eriokson (50), who was charged with drunkenness in Hobson Street, and also with using obscene language. Provided Erickson pnys £5 into the Consolidated Fund within 14 days, lie will not have to serve seven days in Mount Eden. WHAT HAPPENED UPSTAIRS. A married man (31), who wns making his first appearance before the. Court, stood charged with stealing an overcoat, valued at £">, the property of W. H. Overton. Accused' 9 name was ordered to be suppressed. Mr. Overton, licensee of the British Hotel, said that he missed his coat, which was left hanging upstairs, and, on going out to the street, observed accused walking away with it over hie arm. Accused, who was not drunk, had no right to go upstairs in the hotel. Accused's story was that he was drunk, and did not remember how he became possessed of the coat. Hβ was a married man with three, children. Remarking that if he was fined, his children would only go short, Mr. Poynton placed accused on probation for two years. A FAMILY FEUD. When charged with having assaulted his brother-in-law in Queen St. on Saturday a young man pleaded not guilty. Complainant, whoso left cheek wae considerably damnged, alleged that accused and his brother approached him. the former striking him so hard that the force of the blow sent him to the ground. When he was getting up, he was again struck. Accused's version of the matter was that bad feeling had existed between the two for some, little time. He alleged that complainant cast certain aspersions on the character of his late wife. That was more than he could listen to about his dead sister, so he struck complainant. Accused said that he had been greatly provoked The magistrate said that whatever might have been said did not warrant accused taking the law into his own hands. A bad feature of the case was that accused had struck complainant when he was getting up off the ground. A fine of. £5 was inflicted, half the fine to go to complainant. Accused's name was ordered to be suppressed.