THE COURTS—TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 17324, 12 April 1920, Page 6

THE COURTS—TO-DAY

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before J. R. .Bartholomew Esq.. P.M.) Drunkenness.—A first offender, charged with drunkenness on the Railway Station, ■ was fined 10s, in default 48 hours' im-' ' pr'sonm.c-nfc. • ' Awau't.— Emmett James Hussev pleaded ! guilty to assaulting Frederick ftlathieson. —lt was an unprovoked assault upon com- : plainant, according to Sub-inspector ! Mathieson, the victim receiving two -blows ] in the face. Defendant apparently thought ' a friend had been struck bv Mathieson. Ho was fined £5 and costs "(12s). in de- ' fault one month's "imprisonment,'half the ■ fine to go to the man assaulted. Theft Charge Dismissed.—Samuel Coard was charged that on January 4 he stole a canary valued at 15s, the' property' of John Riach. Ho was defended bv' Mr : Hanlon, and pleaded not- guiltv.—Complainant, a carpenter, stated that at 2 ; a.m. on January 4 a constable knocked ; him up and eaid he had seen two men ran out of his gate. He handed witness his canary.—Constable Macrae stated that he saw two men go into Riach's gate, and come out in about, seven or eight min- . utes. Witness heard a small bird squeaking, and intercepted the men. He turned his light on accused, and asked him what ho had in the hand which was in his J. pocket. Accused pulled out his hand, and •allowed the. bird to escape. Witness turned after the bird, and" the men decamped, escaping, though witness followed. Returning, he found the bird on tho road, and gavo it to its owner. He knew accused well by sight and recognised him later in Frederick street, and discovered his name on March 10.—James Tanner (baker) said accused had Remarked to him that Macrae was after him for taking a canary.—The defence was mistaken identity. Defendant said ho was at a dance that evening, and went home in the traracur. He was informed later that Constable Macrae- accused him j.of taking a canary. He knew nothing about the matter.—Sub-inspector-. When you heard the constable was looking for "you, why didn't you, an innocent man, go to the police -station and ask what was the matter?— Accused stated as explanation of Tanner's evidence that Tanner had a set on him—The Magistrate said this was really « more serious case than it seemed on tho face of it, since a penalty of six months' imprisonment was involved. The constable seemed an alert and intelligent officer, and .tho Couru also accepted°Mr Tanner's evidenco of tho statement- made by defendant. At the same time, after the long interval, the case was hardlv strong enough to justify a conviction, and while by no means condemning the constable, he would dismiss the' information. ; By-law Cases.—James B. Reid, for carrying a, young lady' on a motor evele on the Main South road otherwise than in side-car, was fined ss, with costs (7s). The lady passenger, Alma Taylor, was convicted and discharged. Maintenance.—John Scoles consented to I an order for maintenance of his child at the rate of 10s per week, and an order for maternity expenses of the mother. ■ For failing to comply with an order of the Court to pay £2 a week for the support of his wife, John Henry David Smith was sentenced to* one month's imprisonment, to be released on payment of the arrears (£10). Defence Case.—John W. Crawshaw was fined 20s and costs (7s) for failing to attend drills. Illegally in Hotel.—Tho defence of Stephen Boreham, charged with being found on the premises of the Empire Hotel after closing hours, was that he was there to do business on behalf of the Shearers' Union. He also took full responsibility' for another man (James Lynch) being there, as he had asked him to accompany him "as a matter ot courtesy, instead of allowing him to wait outside." Mr J. Lang appeared for both defendants, and entered a plea of nci guilty. Sergeant Murray said that at &5G on Sunday night, February 29, he visited the Empire Hotel in company with a constable, and found the two defendants in the bar parlor with the licensee. B-'re-ham. when questioned, said he was not a boarder, but was there to collect money. Lynch also said he was not a boarder,. and was there to accompany Boreham. Boreham said he was collecting money for tho Shearers' Union funds, and said the men ho had collected from had gone to bed. There wero two empty glasses there. Two boarders were also in tho parlor. Boreham offered to show some papers, but witness did not look at them. —rConstable Dunstan corroborated this evidence.—Mr Lang said that Boreham Had arrived in town on the Saturday night, and had to leave on tho Monday morning-. Lynch merely accompanied him. Counsel contended that Boreham's reason for visiting tho hotel justified his presence there. ITe did net go there to commit a breach of the Act.—Boreham said in evidence that his reason for going to the hotel after hours was to deliver "a receipt for money he had collected. It was entirely his fault Lynch was found there.— The Magistrate : Did you not- realise the risk Lynch was running?— Defendant: " No." Tho union had no office here, and he had to seek every chance of getting these men.—Sub-inspector Mathieson : Is it not a fact that every Sunday evening after yon speak at the Fountain you go to tho Empire Hotel, and tha* von have become a nuisance to the licensee?— Defendant denied this emphatically.—The Sub-inspector : Was thorp anything to hinder you giving the receipt to the licensee?— Witness: Nn,.—The Magistrate, said it was clear from the evidence that Boreham had no business at the "hotel and no excuse for Viu? thare. and he would ho convicted. The same nnplicd to Lvnch. Each would "be fined 10s with costs (7s),