THE COURTS—TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 16547, 5 October 1917, Page 4

THE COURTS—TO-DAY

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before J. R. Bartholomew, Esq., S.M.I Drunkenness.—A first offender, who did nob appear, was fined 20s, in default 48 hours’ imprisonment. Bernard M‘Ledqwney, with two previous convictions within six months, was fined 40s, in default seven days. Roderick MLoed, once previously convicted within six months, and who had on the present occasion been remanded for medical treatment, was convicted and ordered to pay expenses amounting £2 6s 6d, in default seven days’ imprisonment. A Technical Theft.—Thomas Henry Hodgman (Mr Irwin) pleaded guilty to the theft of four chairs and one sofa, valued at £4 18s 6d.—Chief-detective Bishop said that the accused had served with the 3rd Reinforcements, and been wounded at Gallipoli. After returning to New Zealand lie had married and obtained some furniture on time payment from one Charles Uddstrom, a cabinetmaker at Greymouth. On coming to Dunedin, accused had stored the furniture (upon which he had paid £8 in instalments), with the exception of the articles mentioned in the charge. These he had sold for the purpose of raising enough money to bring him and his wife to Dunedin, where he secured work. After seme communication with tho Soldiers’ Welfare Committo tho complainant had taken out a warrant (which had been signed bv a J.P.) for the arrest of accused. The police hero had wired Greymoiith to see if there would be any objection to accused being dealt with in Dunedin, and tho complainant had replied that he had no objection providing the amount of £7 16s, the value of the goods stolen, was paid, and that accused signed an order to hand over the other furniture. —The Magistrate here remarked that, so far as the order was concerned, that Dourt could not be used to enforce tho complainant’s civil rights, and he (complainant) had no right to use the police for this purpose.—The Chief-detective concluded by saying that the accused was a respectable man, and that there was no question about his having served his country and been wounded.—Mr Irwin said that the accused pleaded guiltv, because, if tho court sent him for trial at Greymouth, he would have to give up his work, and ho had himself and his wife to keep. There was a strong probability that ho would be quite justified in pleading not guilty. It was a question, too, whether the warrant should have been issued by a J.P. when a Magistrate was available. There had been plenty; of time to have gob a Magistrate, as negotiations had been proceeding with the Soldiers’ Welfare Committee for some weeks. He (counsel) was acting under instructions for Mr Solomon, chairman of that committee. Counsel submitted that no order should be made for restitution of tho amount, though ] Staff-captain Macaulay, of the Salvation : Army, had Irirdly offered to pay it right i a _ wa y 1 necessary. The complainant' should be left to recover the monev bv i civil action.—The Magistrate, in giving Ids I decision, said that the warrant and tho ; telegram submitted placed auite different; values on the furniture. Before swearing; the information, the complainant should ' havo made sure of these details. In the i circumstances it could not bo said tliat tho value could bo fixed bv the Court. There were altogether exceptional circumstances in tho case, and, though the accused had pleaded guilty, the offence was real iv only a technical one. Accused would be and discharged. If j the complainant wished to recover tho ' value of the goods ho had Iris civil | remedy.