MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 148, 17 March 1908, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

\ .-POLICE CASES. ' . (Before Mr. W. G. Eiddoll, S.M.) ATTEMPTED . SUICIDE. • A. middle-aged . man. named ' Frederick' Tucker, pleaded-.'guilty to. haying; on March 9,; at Wellington, attempted to'commit 'suicide 4 •by jumping into-the' sea -from the Taranaki Street wharf. 1 . ■ 'Dcfendanj:,explained,tliat lie wis a-married-manand •< had . had, a great deal of trouble. during tho past 18 months. Defendant assured the. Court' ■ that 'lib would not attempt 1 such a thing- again..' : ■ '•' ■ His. Worship warded' defendant '.that ha was liable to;- h, term of-' imprisonment not exceeding one- year,--but in-oriew' of his -assurance the Court .was' prepared to' give him : ,a chance. Defendant Woula bo convicted'and ;ordered to-come up' for sentence when callcd ; upon, :}and ordefed' to: pay medical expenses, .10s.- 6d. .'v:-'" > ;- ■ .

' THEFT OF ADRESS BASKET. • Ronald : Grant Gilbert, alias Moore, alifis .Williams, was.brought forward for sentence on . a charge of • the theft, on January 27, of a dress basket containing goods rallied', at £6, tho property of .Edwin -Abbot Phelps. . ,' Chief-Detective M'Grath stated that prisoner arrived in Now : Zealand from Tasmania as a stowaway in .November last. ■' Ho had ;, been .in two or three;'.occupations in , Christchurch,- but had/been discharged .from oacK; of thorn. Prisoner had nojfripnds'.in New,: Zealand. A sentence of one month's .imprisonment was,imposed. ... ; BREACHES OF THE COMPANIES ACT.;. ,! .Another'batch of',limited/ liability' panies were charged'with failing to forward to the; Registrar.; of. Companies their annual list of .niombors,and summary for 1907. Tho Wanganui': Brush Factory ' Company; Ltd., I and the Union Timber Sash 'and Door Company, Ltd.,'wore, each convicted and >'fined 205., and costs £1 18s; ; 6d. Two other cases were adjourned. . ,' . ' . THE SCAFFOLDING ACT. . Harold Fox was charged that,-having con* trol of a building in courso of_ eroctionwhere; an accident occurred, .-ho, Jailed .to servo written''n'riticirof sncli~acc!aent''upon: the In'spbefeor .'of •Scaffolding.'.''. Defendant, who is ''fijr'o[m'ai's liilildiriffofe? tlio I SalV-atio'tt,; Army,' pleaded;''guilty, stating that "hi was not awaro of the provisions >of 'the newi Scaffolding; Inspection Amendment-Act,: under, which tho''information; was laid. 'A- conviction; and. fino"'of : 10s;,; and: costs. 14s., 1 ; in default 24 .'hours';'imprisonment,'.' Tj-ero entered. • ••'»: v jr; ■.• Luke and Cooper,; builders, pleaded guilty to having erected a' scaffolding 'without; having' first' notified the Inspector. of Scaffold--in'gj and were convicted: and fined, 20s;,- > and costs-75.,-in default 24>hours' imprisonment i

:. DISOBEYING.LAWFUL COMMANDS. A seaman 1 on. the steamer Tokomaru named Frank Allen, was charged with having , wilr fully disobeyed the lawfiil commands of the chief officer of the vessel on March 14. Evidence showed that defendant had been given strict instructions not to go, ashore, but had ■ paid no attention ,J;o' the orders. A conric- ■ ti.on' and, fine) 0f,,405. j 'and costs 75., in :d©faulb' •seven days', imprisonment, were imposed, r l -'" ADOPTION OF CHILDREN. f ; ; ; " V ' A,TEST CASE. . .. •• . An- interesting' case'.concerning, the adoption 'of children' was, argued, 'at' considerable length. ' The quefltion involved .was .whether a porson adopting a'child and being paid a premium comes, within tho provisions of/tho; Infant Life' Protection ,Act, 1907. Southerly 'James Curtis and' Emily. Alico^Curtia' : wdro' charged that,, on February 11,'ill'consideration, of payment', they/did .retain "in".their ;caro a . certain infant, apart fr'om its' parents /for a' longer period, than seven- days,' without ibeing licensed under the Infant Life Protection Act, 1007. '■/■:'- v ' ' Mr. M yors "appeared 'for' the prosecution, and Mr. Dunn tor the defence. Counsel for the prosecution stated that the case wus practically ta test case,:tho information boing tho first'of the kind' laid under Sections 4, ■ 16, and 18 of the Infant Life Protection Act.Section 4 of tho'Act states : —(1) It shall not be lawful, for. any person, in consideration,of any payment'/or.,reward, to recoivo er'rrtain , in his care ■ or. ! charge any infant for the purpose of nursing or maintaining it apart ifrosvits. parents -.or guardians for.;,& longer period, than , seven consecutive days unless sueh ~ person / is licensed'.under.this Aet.'as a .foster parent. '•(2) The Minister may. from time i to, timo-by warrant' exempt from the* provisions, of. this section : (a), Any :institntion that is supported' wholly or in part bjr moneys of tho Crowii or by public, subscription; . (b)ra.ny. person who, being a near relative ,of, an infant, desires to' take charge thereof or'.;(c) 'any person, as to/whom the Minister, is satisfied that,such provisions should not apply.'!' It was admitted in the present case . .that, . the adopting parents , were not licensed, and they had made no application'' for exemption. Section" 15 renders a ny person who, commits a !breach of any of the provisions of the 'Act liable to a fine not,:exce«lihg £50, or to,imprisonment for any, period, not'exceeding; six months. In the. case under notice, said counsel- for the prosecution, defendants by an order mado by tho Court on February 21 became the adopted parents: of tho Child in question, and a fee of £20 was paid to them. Tho.'short point of the' case, it was' submitted, was that, by virtue of Section \lB of tho Statute, aii ofFenco had been cbifnmitted by defendants under Section 4. "' In other words, tho Act'of 1907 imposed upon a person, who took tho responsibility of adopting parents under an order of the- Magistrate; an additional obligation. They must become foster patents umder I .Section..4, #r tlioy naurt obtain erewption from , the Minister.-. Tho' power/of exemption, ft; wm argusd, was very wide, and presumably the .Minister would in _ mort casea ; , let upoi* tho report ti the Magistrate. Arthmv, Harry Holni€a, «lcrk of th# M»gi»trato's Court, stated that the Vwo defnidanta beoamo tho adoptive parents ,<vf the' ohiJd iin question by order of-tho, Court mad« oa Fobruary ' 21. Defendants were to °raoMr« n premium of £20, which premium was to bo used solely for the purchase of articles for the child and for its upbringing. . a • Sirs, liiiiiily Alico" Curtis deposed that sbo adopted the child and received tha sum of £20. whicH was used eutiroly foi- the benefit of taa child. She received the child for tho purpose of adopting it as ke»' ovrn, and with tbo intention of assuming the responsibility of a parent towards/it. It was not tho intention to keep it for a time and subseauontlv return it-to its parents. ■ ■ ; J

To Mr. Myers: The child was'handed over to witness tho day tho order was mado by the Magistrate, and tho premium was' paid the same day. Witness, in the first place, applied to a 'certain Heme'forthe'cliild, and the subsequent arrangements w«re made by her. solicitor. Witness had.adopted th» child because she was fond of childron. "When she received the child it kid not a second change of clothing,-. She would not hire Cieen able to provide the necessaries for it without tho premium. ( .. . : Mr. Dunn, for ilia defence,..,, advanced several arguments wjaintt persons adopting children being brought under the mansions, of the Act, and pointed, out that tho object of the adopting 'parent' i» th» oase ; . rmder .notice waa to bring tlio ; child up. a-v tho parent's own, and aot t# " recotve" tho child. Counsel .argued th*t adoption premiums could not bo strtiek ont because' tlio Adoption of Children Amandnnut Act, 1850, provided that preminms were legal if consented .to by a' Magistrate. - Another thing was that the statute ; m question was a, highly penal statute, and, provided for a flue of up to' £50, and nobody, should, bo brought- within the provisions lirilosa; tlioy came within the clear words of the statute.', Cennsol was ..of- opinion . that■: there was. no reason why adopting . parents, .should, bo brought under-', the Act. because there were any amount of-otber, safeguards. in°tho, tion of Children Act against abuse. • .Further, under tho ' Infant Life Protection Act . tho

position of , tho adopting parent was'recognised, the adopting parent .being liable to ,rofund to the' IMucat-ion Departmeht aU si'fins that, the ' Department ..might spend ' for' .tho support of the child;' Further, in,the ordinary meaning of the words, what was known as an "adoption premium ". ..wasnot a,reward or payment for maintaining', a -child; within the moaning .of' Section 4 "of the Act.'' Hfaj Worship reserved his decision.,

MISCELLANEOUS. , Sarah Jamieso'n was.called upon to!answer< a charge pf. being ari'idle and disorderly, per-; son with ho visible lawful means of support." Defendant was. not' in,' a .fit: state to plead, and was . consequently- remanded for .'curative treatment until March. 28. , ... V ' ' George" H. Stanford was convicted and 'fined 205.; in seven days' .imprisonment,, for disobedionce of ail order , under •the Destitute -Persons. Act for the maintenance of his* wife, Jessie Stanford.,, : Frederick Arnold was convicted , and sentenced to' one month's. imprisonment'- ; with ;ha'rd labour for habitual 'drunkenness.. Joseph Stringer, v yWilliam Ballantyrie,', and: Donald -M'Milian were each convicted-' and fined 10s., in'default 18 hours' ' imprisonment for in--sobriety;: 1 ; wei'o vcon'vic-ted'aad.'fined-55., - with.an alternative of 24 hours' imprisonment, and two-others were convicted' and discharged. 1