THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 12843, 19 June 1906, Page 6

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowaon, Esq., 3.M.) Drunkenness.—Kate, Bethnne, charged with this olfencc, was fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. . Time to par was refused. Theft.—Harry Anderson was charged with that he did, on the 51st May, break and enter th- dwelling-house of Sarah Oilier, and steal therefrom two gold rings, one gold bangle, one pair of gold earrings, and one pair of boots, of the total value of £B, the property of the said Sarah Oilier; also one gold bangle, one gold necklet pendant, ard 15s in money, the property of Violet Field; also one metal watch, one fruit knife, and one greenstone brooch, the property of Harvey Smith.— Chief-detective Herbert asked for a remand until Friday next.- The accused had been arrested at Balclutha, and had only arrived here last evening. The police would have their case ready on the date mentioned, and it was understood it was accused’s intention to plead guilty.—The remand asked for was granted. Maintenance.—John Brownie was charged by his wife. Margaret 0. Brownie, with failing to provide adequate support for herself and tiireo children, aged respectively twelve, ten, and five years. 3lr J. T. Bolt appeared for complainant; Mr A. C. Hanlon for defendant.—The evidence elicited' from the parties by counsel disclosed the fact that defendant had been paying the rent of the house in which his family lived, besides regularly settling the accounts for groceries, milk, and clothes for the children. Since January last defendant had also given his wife over £6 in Complainant’s son, who was living in her house, paid her 13s per week, and she was further receiving a sum of 15s per woek Horn a boarder.—Mr Hanlon said that defendant had had to take the active control of moneys out of his wife’s hands owing to her extravagance. Through this {idling be had got into debt, out of which he had not yet Deen able to extricate himself. He submitted that no order .could ba made against a husband simply because his wife found she was unable to get along on what was .given her. Some women were not ■ able t» look after money, and undo* - suet circumstances the husband was justified in acting as he had done.—After going exhaustively into the case Hi* Worship ctrnmssed the iofonnatioas. j.