CITY POLICE COURT. (Before J. R. Bartholomew, Esq., S.MI Drunkenness. —Cyril Waters was fined 5s or 24 hour?. By-law Cases. —For allowing cattle to wander in the borough of St._ Kikla, John William Bam bey was lined 5s without costs, and Philip John Hcllyer 5s with costs (7s!. > _ # Maintenance. —For disoWying a * maintenance order. Alfred MTarlane, lor whom Mr Irwin appeared, was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment., the warrant to be suspended so long ns the deieu-dant kept up Ids payments. Prohibited.—George Riley, a prohibited person, was charged with procuring liquor from some person unknown, and also with being found on licensed premised.—The senior sergeant said that the informations were 18 months old. The, man could not be found until recently. The. defendant, who did not appear, was fined 10s and costs (7sl or 3 days on one information, and the other charge was struck out.
Breach of the Peace.--Hemingway Aitken, Robert Norman, and Jack Barbara were charged with using threatening behavior in Young street. St. Kildu.—They pleaded not guilty, and wore represented by Mr Hanlon'.—Senior-sergeant Dart said that two brothers named Bloxham, who were really tho -complainants in the case, were outside a billiard room in St. Kikla on tho night of tho 28th of last mouth. Tho two defendants. Norman and Aitkeu, came out of the. saloon, and one, of the Bloxhams asked Norman about tho money ho owed him. Ait-ken interposed, and said : “Talking about money, have you got any?” Bloxliam said he had. and Ait ken then challenged him to fight for it. Tlie other Bloxham got between them and Aitkeu attacked him, knocking him down. Then Aitkeu sang out to Norman to call Barbara, who came out of tho saloon and struck one of the Bloxhams. —Evidence was given by Robert Hutton Bloxham, William John Bloxham, and Constable Frye.—Mr Hanlon said there was no question that the two Bloxhams had not told the truth about tho matter. The probabilities were that what had happened was that the two brothers went to the billiard saloon for the purpose of having it out with Norman, who owed one of them money. They could not- gut it out of him, and they wanted a. row. Norman was struck on the side of the jaw. and Ait-ken’was next attacked and knocked down. Norman was under the doctor's care, and took no part in the affair. He went for Barbara, who pulled tho Bloxhams off Aitkeu.—Evidence was given by tho three defendants. Ernest I’ennow, James Jeffs, and Constable M‘flac.—His Worship said that the- most important thing in his mind was the statements made by tho defendants to Constable Frye when he interviewed them. Barbara said lie heard there had been a row, but bo did not go over to it. Norman said he saw a fight, but did not know who was in it, except one of Cm Bloxhams. These statements must have been made with some reason. There was the further fact that the yaungor Bloxham ran for the police at tiie time of the .row. The whole tiling was a scuffle, .and it did not matter who instigated it. He did nut consider it a serious breach in the circumstances. and each defendant would be fined 10s and court costs (3s 8d each), or three days’ imprisonment. Witnesses’ expenses were not allowed.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS-TO-DAY, Evening Star, Issue 15627, 19 October 1914