THE COURTS-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 16782, 10 July 1918, Page 6

THE COURTS-TO-DAY

crrr police court. j (Before H. A. Young, Esq., cLM.) j Drunkenness.—A first offender w;is lined ! 20:-= or 43 hours.— Michael Hickey and Vvil- . lirmi M'Caifery ■were each fined 10» or 43 hours. Prohibited.—Garden Allan, a prohibited person, was charged with beinj? found on licensed premises at Green Island, and was lined 10s and costs (Us), or three days' imprisonment. Born in Germany.—Arthur Scvcrin Schmidt was charged wish failing to make, application or registration under the Aliens' Registration Act.—Mr Hanlon appeared for the defendant, who pleaded sanity.—Sub-inspector Mathieson said that ilic defendant was a married man, living at the- North-east Valley. He had been a. resident of New Zealand since he was about 15 rears of age. His parents were Germans, and he was born in Germany. He wiifi first known under the name of Schmidt Severin. He was under the honest belief that he was naturalised. He, was led to understand that he went through some form of naturalisation 20 years ago.—Bis Worship : I understood that if the parents bcame naturalised the children then bocame naturalised Mr Hanlon: Ho did not come out with his parents- —The Rubinspector- said he came to reside with an uncle. Inquiries showed that ho _ was not, naturalised. There was no sncsrestion whatever that he was disloyal. He was a man of pood character. lie had been in New Zealand since 1879, and was 55 years of !,,-r„._Mr Hanlon said that the sub-inspec-tor- bad fairlv stated the facts. The defendant came to DnTiedin as a cabin boy in the British ship Timaru in 1079. Ho ' ultimately went to Palmerston. where bis j uncle lived. He. worked for him there, j and his uncle told him that lie would see | Mr Arkle. who was a J.P.. and have him made a British subject. The uncle told him later that MY A ride was Axing ths matter up. but apparently be was not naturalised. For H H these rears he had \ honestly believed Unit be was a naturalised | British'snbip<-t, Mr Arkle did not remem- ; her doiiijr nnvthinsr in the j ho remembered the man well. There- wis no suL'fostion that the defendant was dis- j lova!. He bad married an English woman, 1 and bad always looked upon himself as a British subject. He bad subscribed to everything for patriotic purposes, j and had acted as a Britisher throughout i t,l )f! war.—H : s Worship ;Tahe on the olectoral roll?—Mr Hanlon :No-.he is at sea I a srroat part of his time.—His Worship: Whv did he never become a voter'?—Mr Hiuilnn : He did not take anv interest in He-ticn*.—His Worship: If he considered hinvvlf a British subject, wliv didn't he?— Mr Hanlon said a preat many British subjerfs tool: no interest in elections, and would take less if they were not induced bv ablators to do so. These people very tbsm up to vote. How many British subiects voted for the e l e,-tion of a councillor, or even for Mavor? They were on the. mil because somelmd" else nut. them r>n.--The Rub-inspector said that the defendant wo"ld reristcr a'- soon as the Court disposed of the case.—His Worship said that the defendant a German, and was Under those circumstances it was his duly to renter. He had taken no ?,!ep* to find out whether be was mitnralised or not He h-d no reason to do»bt his bona fides in the matter : but. liei'Mr a German, there were certain disabilities, and he have taken extra cire to comnlv with the law. He was liable to a fine of £r'\ but in the circum no would infiiet a. penalty of fltO n-d ro-,U H<).

Theft.—WTiam Alfred 110-croft was ■ •bailed with stealing a child's dreys. valued at 3s. the property of Annie Hone. He was, further charged with steabtv_< a, •out's ovcrcn.it. vah'ed at £l. the rrroportr of pome person unknown ; and also witil tf cling n ladv's sini/let and a- rnnflhn-. '■ehied .'it 6s. the property of wmc person He pleaded rm'Hv to the first (•banjo, ami noi- cniltv to the other two.— Annie Hope, second-hand dealer. sauMhat accused fflme to her shop on the Ist insf.,

an,l sold her an overcoat for £l. He cave {he name of TTolden.— Detective Hammerlv slid he watched accused leave, the Inst witness's shop, and saw hi in drop a child's from his sack coat. Witness spoke to him. and asked him v.'iefe he <?<>(; the dross from. He said he did not know, and irivo the name of Brent, Witness took him to the shop, and Mrs Hope ident'lh-d the dress as her property. On being searched, a. new ladv's sinidct -and mi'fHer was found under his sack coat. Ho told witness that- while in an hotel he houtrht the rivereo.it from n man he did not know. Tie could not- pivc him the name of the hotel.--Accused paid that lie < anio hfi'e from Auckland about a fortnight atro. ami went' to work in the. country. While in camp ho was shot, in the stomaeb. Ho houii'ht the overcoat from a soldier who was '-•o-ritr to camp, lor "ss.—Cross-ex-ammed hv admitted' that he w:>s a-imitled to \9. months' probation nt the Thames m 1914 for abduction. He was convicted, and o'-dered to e..,mi? nn ?<•'-' sentence at Auckland in V?M on char-e* of forcery and ti.cit, and was fined £?, at W-dhi this year on a charge of_ theft. — His Worship remanded accused to'" a week in order to get the probation officer's report from Auckland. Patrick Cecil Dillon and .Tames Dillon (Mr Scurrd pleaded not miiltv to stealing 601b of scrap castiron.'valued at os 6d. the property of the fiovernmenf.— A lexnnder Charles Knss. tTovernmevit dairy inspector and produce reader, said that the stolen iron consisted of broken pails of a set of scales which bad been taken over in ;i bac; from the old store to the, )v::\v store in the railway yard, .and no one had any authority to take it from there.—.Tames V.rodie. foreman at the store, said the broken scales, hid been hint; in {lie stoie for about 14 years. lie dctcod giving Patrick .Dillon permission to take the s.tutT'.---Detcetivo Hammerkv said that he and Deteetiveserroant Kemp noticed .Tames Dillon ctoiivj; into (kirsidc's foundry, where, he attempted to sell the scrap. Interrogated, the. man said be had ;;iot. it from outside the A'jrieu!iu>'al Department's store, arid that it had been piven to bis brother by the foreman. Drcilie. When the, latter was seen, be denied any authority for i.he iron to be taken away.- -Mr Scut said the aecus.-d ci->imcd that, the iron bad been given to Patrick iwho worked at the store! by Brodie. \'*hi:!i the rubbish, which had been Iyinjr in the stores for 14 years, was beiiv.: cleared away, Patrick had at von ■Tames permission to remove it :-,nd sell it.

-- Patrick Dillon said Dint when the rubbish was beini; swept up at Die old .'store he remarked to lirodia (hat the iron ruijflit be worth sonict iiin:;. and Die latter had replied that he could have it and do what he liked with it. So hj» put it aside, .-aid wine time later told his brother to £<> and iake it—that it would be nil right: it had been Riven him.—James Dillon jjavc corroborative evidence.—John Dillon, another brother, who is employed at the stores, paid that Rrodie had asked him on two occasions why Pat had not taken the iron .away, hut when the police took the matter UH Rrodie. had become frightened arid told another story ; had. in fact, sworn falsely. —His Worship said that tho story told by the accused was highly improbable, and there was no reason why Brodie's evidence should be disbelieved. in view of the accused's past record it was highly probable that the. theft, was committed.'_ They would be convicted.—Mr Scurr said that both accused were hard-working men. and

suggested that, in view of the. small value, of the iron stolen, a monetary penalty would meet tho case. —His Worship said that he thought this was a case for a term of imprisonment. Each of the, accused would be sentenced to 34 days.

By-law.—Michael George pleaded guilty to keeping poultry under conditions creating a nuisance.—Chief-inspector King described the insanitary conditions under which the fowls had been kept. _ The defendant had been given ample time to remedy matters, bat had omitted to do so, and "a charge had to be laid. The place had now been cleaned up, however, and a heavy penalty was not pressed for.—Defendant explained that he. had sickness in his house, which prevented his cleaning up sooner. —H<* was convicted and ordered to pay costs (7s).