THE COURTS—TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 17328, 16 April 1920, Page 6

THE COURTS—TO-DAY

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Drunkenness.—Robert .Morris arid a first offender were each fined 10s, in default 48 hours' imprisonment.—Four men were charged with being drank and disorderly at the Princess Theatre, and two of them were further charged with using indecent language. Mr Irwin appeared for tho defendants, and suggested that the charges should ha reduced to drunkenness only. The defendante ' would plead guilty to that charge. They denied the others, and he (Mr Irwin) thought the other charges could rot be sustained.—Subinspector Mathiesnn said t*Si the trouble arose over engaged seats being found occupied 'when the buyers went late. It was quite true that Mr J. Hamer now said he did not hear bad language rued, though it might have been. In any ease the language complained of was comparatively mild. lie (the sub-inspector) consented to the course proposed by Mr Irwin being adopted, and if so, the defendants were on the footing of first offenders.—His Wor-t-hip allowed the charges to be reduced to drunkenness, and fined each defendant 10s and costs, which included £4 for witnesses' expenses. After Hours.—John Morrison, Burner was charged with being found in Tattersrdl's Hotel at 8.30 p.m.. on March 28. Mr Irwin defended.* and pleaded not guilty.—Constable M'Culloch deposed fhathe arid Constable Frew went" into tho small room lx-tween the two bn.r.s and found there sewn men, four of the seven ion-boarders. Defend.-mt was one of the four. Defendant told him that he lived at the Wharf Hotel, and had called to pee Miss M'Mlllnn. tho barmaid, who was a personal friend of his : but she had gone out. and he wa3 waiting for her to upturn. Witness remained and saw V;,~ M'Millan. who wild that she h:id appointed to see the defendant. Kit had gone out.—Mr Irwin stated that Ruckiier was a nnva-1 lieutenant, and the fa-<-t that he was living in another hotel negatived the presumption that he had gore to Tattoifall's for drink, because he could have hrd oceans of it it bis own hotel. Besides. th"re was no sien of drink in the room where he was titling at Tattersall's.—Defendant cave -videnre. He had been three and a-hn]f years in the Arnv, and was transferred to the Navv iv 1 01 P. and was now awaking demo 1 -'i'.; n t-:., n TTe ha.d an appointment with Virs M'Millan. and went to keen it. and. heiuT told that she might return anv minute, he waited. When he went into the ..■(vet with the constable .thev met her rornhgr Hark. He d;d not know it was an ~ff.'nt n "to wait in the sitting room,—H : s Worship said the only question was whe'her the explanation was bona fide. Tf it w>s. defendant had a leritimate reason Unl.eing in the hotel, because a person living in- the hotel, n.s the bavma-.d was. had a right to receive a visitor. Ordinarily the excuse that "I went to see the barmaid" would be open to suspicion: but, linking at all the circumstances of this case, it seemed clear that the defendant did not go there to get drink. The explanation would he accepted by the Court, "and that meant that the information would ha dismissed. George Scurr and Charles Graham, similarly charged, were defended by Mr Irwin, who put in a plea of not guilty, and said that Giaham "was unable, to attend.—Constables M'Oillorh and Frew gave evidence. They said that the defendants were two of the non-boarders they found in ,Tattersall's Hotel at 8.30 p.m. on March 28. S'curr told witnesses that he was invited into the hotel hy one Findiay, a hoarder there for six: rears, and Graham accompanied him. Graham's account to the police was that he called to see a friend named Arthur Wilson. When Mrs Blaney was seen next day she produced the boarders' register, which was not written up from March 4 to 25. and in it there was the'entry of "E. Wilson" as having stayed at the hotel on the prevoius Saturday.—Seurr also gave evidence, saying that he met Findiay in the street, and they went toHhe hotel, where- Findiay was living, to talk over a trip they were about to take. Findiay was not in Court as a witness—His Worship eaid that the Court could not accept the explanation tendered. Quite a narrow construction had been placed upon this section of the Act in England. There) was there a case in which a boarder went out motoring, and on returning invited his friend to have a drink. For this the motorist and his friend were prosecuted and convicted, and the conviction, was upheld on appeal. It was not an offence to furnish the liciuor to the boarder, but it w?s held that as they only went in to get drink, thev had ho right to be there. In this case ha (Mr Bartholomew) would require some better explanation than the one given—there ehould be<some reason why the defendants were in the hotel at the particular time they were found. Each defendant would be convicted and fined 20s, with costs. I

Charge of Cruelty.—John M'Donald and Wilfred Cyril Anthony were charged with cruelly ill-treating a dog. Mr Irwin defended.—Charlotte Burmister. living in Leith street, said that on February 28 last she heard a do<r crying out. She went to eee. what was the matter, and saw a dog hanging on a fence next door with a rope round its neck. The animal was bleeding from the head and mouth. Anthony draped it off the .jrvnss and it on the fence. It war,'left there fur j half an hour.—Cross-examined : The. dorr suffered from cramp. She railed out to ■ the men to put the animal out of its misery, and someone replied that he was trying to do so.—Henrietta A?!""-- YT*ir and Detective Beer also gave evidence. The last-named said that M'Donald admitted striking; the dog with a piece of wood, and then hanging it on the feive to finish it. The animal had been subjectto fits. He added that it was onlv on th» fence for about three minutes. The defendant then said that he put it in a park and dropped it in the harbor.—-Mr Irwin said that the dojr was in the habit of taking fits, and was daneerou?. M'Donald decided to destroy it. He struck it on the head with a piece of wood, and hung it on the fence when he thought it was dead. Anthony was not until after the donr was killed. He simply helped the other defendant to put it in a bag.— M'Donald said that the dog wng biting "and frothing at the mouth? He hit it twice on the head. It never yelled at all. It was dead when he put a rope round its no"k and hune it on the fence. The do?; was darperoua when children were about. Anthony v.-as not present until afterwards.— Oross-examired b" th» Chief Detective • He might have had a diink or two, but not under the influence.—Anthony said that the do? was lumping or. the fence when he appeared on the scene. He simply gave the' other defendant a hand to take it away.—His Worship said that the evidence 'of the ladies was that it was the uahiful cries that attracted their attenion! M'Donald could have killed the animal in a mure human way. The obvious explanation was that he was under the influence of d-mk" He would bo fined £3 and costs C9=). or one months' imprisonment, and the case against Anthony would He dinni=sed By-law _ Case .—C. R. Murray, chared with dnvincr a motor car m Princes' street at a speed greater than six miles an no'.ir. whf firred 9.0* and (7=) Thefts from the B?ihvav.—Frederick Lreorge Smith, on remand, was charged with stealing from the Dunedin railway station two rues, two cameras, two mirrors, two ladies' handbags, one hair brush, one tonms racket, two umbrella*, one sports coat, one trinket box, 34 handkerchiefs, 18 pairs of stockings, three bicycle tubes, to the total r.ilue of about £39, the property of persona unknown. He was also charged, as a servant of the railway, with stealing two military hair brushes and caee and a silk blouse, of the total value of £5, the property of Emily Watts! He was further charged with" stealing from the Dunedin railway station an eiderdown quilt, valued at lis, the property of the Kaianoi Woollen Company.—Smith and John Alexander Metcalfe we're jointly charged with stealing from the Dunedin railway station a handbag and contenta of the total value of £27 17s 6d, ths property of Wilson Campbell.—Emily Isabella Watts, residing in Clyde street, said that she left. town, by train for Evansdale on the. let inst. On arrival there she | found that her bag had been opened and that two military hair brushes and a

blouse had been removed from it—Ernest William George Watts said that the bag containing the articles was nut in the guards van.—Wilson Campbell; mechanic, ™'u "? £" In \ercargill J said that on the 24th of December last he left his ■travelling bag and contents-in the left luggage omce at the railway station here. On Tetui'ning for his bag three hours later he lound that it was missing.—Robert Henrv Simons, stationmaster at Dunedin, said tliat bmith idned the railway here as a porter on October 8, 1917. be had also been employed as an assistant guard. Metcal'f joined the service on March 27, 1915, and was granted leave on October 8. 1917, to join the New Zealand Expeditionary Forces. He resumed duty as a porter on August 21, 1913. He was" later transferred to Pehchet Bay.—David Millar,, commercial traveller m the employ of the Kaiapoi Woollen Company, said that he left Lawrence on September 14 last. The quilt produced was In his hamper, which was consigned to Dunedin. It was' left here overnight, On takin« delivery he found tlio article missing.—Detective Kelly said that on the 2nd inst. Detective Beer and he interviewed Smith at his house. He said that on the previous day he was acting as assistant 'guard on 'the train to Palmerston. and that whilst it was standing at Waitati he took the brushes and blouse from a Gladstone bag. TJiev also found a kit bag and most of the articles mentioned in the informations. Accused eaid that at 6 o'clock on Christmas morn\W he~iound the kit bag between the coalhouse and the heating-nous's at the north end of the railway station. He drew Metealf's attention to it. They opened it up ond examined the contents. Metcalf said "This will do me." Smith also admitted taking the quilt from a traveller's hamper, and some of the articles mentioned from railway carriages and other traveller's hampers.—The accused pleaded guilty, mid were committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.

Attempted Bigamy.—Sydney Clive Humphreys was charged with at Wellington failing to comply with tho terms of an order for the support of his wife and child. _ Ho was also charged with attempting to commit bigamy at Dunedin by going through the "form of marriage with Irene Louiso Erridge. Chief-detec-tive Bishop called evidence on the second charge. Irene Louise Erridge, a, young girl, said that she had known accused for about live months as Sydney Thomson. She knew him as a single ma'n when she first met him. Later she heard he was a mairiod man, and she questioned him. lio t hi her ho had never been married, llii ashed her about New Year time io marry him. She first took him to her mother's house in February. Her mother asked him to wait until witness

was 21 years of age. He said he wanted witness as soon as lie conld get her. and the, marriage was fixed for March 51 last. Four days prior to that date her mother spoke to accused about being- a mprried man. Tie strongly denied it. Witness continued to make "arrangements for the marriage until the night of the 3"th. when accused was arreted at her mother's house. When being taken awav he dropped a. wedding ring on her lao. Accused had no guest ions to r.sk. and the case was proceeding at 3.30 p.m.