MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21256, 30 August 1934, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

* WEDNESDAY (Before Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M.) REMANDED Harold Price, an electrician, aged 27, of Edinburgh street, was remanded to appear to-day on a charge of stealing, on May 24, a bicycle valued at £l4 18s, the property of Thomas Johnston Morrow. FAILURE TO PAY FARE R Stewart was fined 10s and costs for 'failing to pay a tram fare. Mr J. D. Hutchison, for the Tramway Board, said that Stewart was ap•parently a relief worker. He had "boarded the Sumner tram at the Heathcote bridge and travelled to the souare, telling the conductor that ho would pay at the office. Provision had been made by the board for the issue of special tickets to relief workers which covered a day's travel to and from their work for threepence. There i seemed to be little excuse for Stewart not paying his fare. Several other reports of a similar nature about Stewart had been received from conductors during a period from May 9 to June lj ' NO BUILDING PERMIT Abraham J. Hook was fined £ 1 and costs for adding to an existing building without a permit. LABOUR DEPARTMENT CASES Fin cm on charges brought by the Labour Department were imposed as follows: — ,« Delivering coal on a statutory haltholiday: K. G. McCaw, 10s and costs; Weslport Coal Company, Ltd., £1 and costs. Failure to pay unemployed levy: W. H. Evans, £5 and costs, convicted and discharged on six other charges; H. W. B. Jacobs, £5 and costs, convicted and discharged on 11 other charges; A. E. Porter, convicted and ordered to pay costs on one charge, convicted and discharged on another; S. A. Skilling, £1 and costs: J. Stitt. £1 and costs, convicted and discharged on eight ether charges. Making a false statement to an unemployment official: Harry Vernon Wyatt, convicted and discharged. Making a false declaration of inI come: Thomas George, £2 and costs. | SEPARATION ORDER Mrs Elsie Woodhead (Mr _M. J. Burns) was granted a separation and maintenance order against Chaues Firth Woodhead, on the grounds ot failure to maintain. . A similar action had previously been brought by Mrs Woodhead, but the magistrate had refused separation and had adjourned the case sine die, with the provision that Woodhead should pay his wife half his earnings. _ Woodhead contended that his wife had not abided by the magistrates ruling, in that she had not allowed him access to the children. Mr Burns said that the defendant had asked if he might go to his wife's hou * io get some clothes belonging to j . hi but at the same time he had j ' taken other articles, including cutlery, electric light bulbs, and an easy chair. The magistrate said that the action of the defendant in going to his wife s house and taking certain articles went io show not, onlv that he had failed to maintain Mrs Woodhead, but that lie was prepared to take away from her those little comforts that she had. A separation order was made, together with an order for custody of the children in favour of Mrs Woodhead. and an order for maintenance of 10s a week for each child. An order for maintenance for the wife was reserved. The magistrate added thai he lelt eon trained to sentence the defendant. 1 Section 0;: of the Do.Ulute Persons Act gave him power to impose a seni ter.ee of six months' imprisonment on i any person who, without reasonable i ca!i-e, (ailed to \yr his wife with j adequate maintenance, or any parent | who failed to provide adequate main- | teriance for a child. This was a powei , i he had not yet thought necessary to ' I exercise, b'.it he wished it to be under- , stood that he intended to do so if ■ S necessary in the future. Defendant in | this case would be convicted under ! the act but punishment, would be rcI served.