TEE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 12760, 13 March 1906, Page 6

TEE COURTS-TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before C. C. Graham, Esq., S.M.) Drunkprcne.^—Ellen M'Gee pleaded guilty Again to this offence. There were 106 previous convictions a<rarinst her for drunkenness and for breach of a piohibitkxnt order. She had only come out of-prison yesterday mojukig.—-She was convicted, and discharged. A first offendier (female) was fined ss. with the usual alternative.-—-A male first offender was shmtady d«dt with Br_>aebe6 of the By-laws.—John Howie pleaded guilty to feeding a horse in a public place in a manner other than by means.of a nose bag, contrary to the bylaws.—Defendant was discharged with a caution. George Graham pleaded guilty to driving a cart in a water channel, contrary to the by-law. Mr Maogregor appeared for the Corporation.—Defendant was fined 5s and costs (17s 6d). Factory Act Case.—The inspector of factories proceeded against J. Romison and Co. for that, being the occupiers of a factory, they did fail to provide an efficient fire escape, as required under the Act.— Mr Hay a-ppeared for the defendants, and the case was adjourned for one week. A Tramway Case.—Peter Johnstone was charged (under the Tramways Act) with liaving refused to leave the pksfcform of a tr;un when lequetsted to do so. Mr W. C. Macgregor appeared to prosecute for the Corporation, and Mr Gaikvway defended, the plea being not guilty.—Mr Macgregor said that the defendant, who, he believed, was a carter living in South Dunedin, got on the mctonnaffi's platform of a tram on January 25. The mofconnan ordered bini to leave, and he refused. Subsequently the conductor asked him to leave, and he refused again.—Andrew Fniser, motorman, gave evidence as above. he said that thesae had been a notice on the trams that the motorman's platform was not for passengers unless the car was full.—Conductor Gillies said that the car was pretty well filled, but there was room between the seats. Defendant had-expiained to him that his wife was on the car, and he would not leave. The gate at one side of the motor-man's platform was open.—The Magistrate said that he had no hesitatioa in dismissing the case. The oar was a public conveyance, and it was understood that, when uhe car was crowded four people were allowed to sit on the front platform. There were seats put there for the purpose, and ]i>?. himself would decline, in the inee of the tramways' own regulation permitting four to sit on the front seat under certain circumstances, to give up his seat and Bland at the back. The motorman, kwi no right to deprive the public of a privilege granted by the Corporation.—Mr Macgregor said that he could not see the reasons for a dismissal. The Act said that any person who refused to leave the platform of the car when requested to do so was liable to a fine. His Worship's remarks were calculated to assist in the manufacture of accidents. for there was northing moredangerous tlian to crowd a motorman. The case could not. rest as it was.—The Magistrate eaid that there was no crowding of the nHrtarman. Provision was made for seating four people in front under certain conditions. The case was dismissed. Maintenance.—Applications for the maintenance of their half-brothers were niado as against two brothers—Henry H. Clifford and -Arthur Bertram Clifford. By consent the ease against the former was adjourned. The ease against the latter was heard, Mr J. H. Hosking appearing for the complainant and Mr Hanlon for the defendant.—-Mr Hosking said that the complainant was the widow of Mr Clifford, who had lately died. She was his second ■wife, and had been married eighteen years. Two of the sons by the previous wife had been practically brought up by the complainant. During a part of the lifetime of the father the sons (thret) had contributed to his maintenance at the rate of £1 a week between them. Directly the father died, however, the contributions ceased. Ike complainant had two sons by ber late husband, and it was in respect- of these that the application was made because under the Act there was apparently no authority for a step-mother to obtain maintenance from her step-eons. But he submitted that the half-brothers came within the Act.—The complainant gave evidence that, the present defendant had paid 5s up to the time of the father's death in December last, Her own sons were eleven and nine yeans of age-.—Mr Hanlon said that the first question was whether an order could be made against the defendant. The only ground ou which the complainant could succeed would be by showing that the .defendant waa a brother of thef* children. The Act, in giving the relatives from whom maintenance,could be obtained under the plea of destitution mentioned "brother," and he submitted that it could not be shown that defendant was a brother of the two children. With regard to £he merite of the case, the defendant, who was • a married man, had been in delicate health of late, and had had to take work as a salesman and traveller in the country—at Mosgiel—instead of pursuing his work as an upholsterer in town.—Defendant deposed that he earned £2 lGs a week, that he had to purchase many medical comforts, and was- attended by a doctor at intervals. He waa quite unable to continue paying anything, and could not save a penny.— The Magistrate reserved his decision until the other case was heard. Daniel Macdonald wars ch*rged (on remand) with having made no provision for the maintenance of Iris unborn iUegSjraate child. Mr Hanlon appeared for hko, and Mr Sim far the complainant.—*Jo evidence was offered, and the case was struck oat, casts being chren against compketaant (£2 24. Henry CSsby and Joba'CKsby (far the latter of whom Mr GaOawa-y appeared} were proceeded against under the Destitute Pearsons Act to- provide mamfcenance for their father, Itonklin Oisby. Mr Lemon appeared for the complainant—After some argument as to fair division of the order, the Magistrate made an order for the payment of 2s 6d per week as against Henry Clishy and 4s od a week as against John Gbsby.