CITY POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 17964, 10 May 1922, Page 4

CITY POLICE COURT

Wi:dm:sday, May 10. (Before Mr J. I’. Bartholomew, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Lilly Brown, charged with being found drunk, said : “ I think 1 would like to plead not guilty.” Constable Shughruo said ho, arrested defendant last evening. She was staggering about, and smelt very strongly of liquor. Defendant ; You know my name. Tim Constable : Yes. Defendant ; Of course, you kno-v tee fair Lillian ! In reply In IDs Worship, iWndant st d T might have had a diink or two, but I wasn’t drunk. . A fino of 10s was imposed, y.otlp tho .alternative of forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. AN ABSCONDER. Grueo Shaw .was charged with absconding from the Caversham Industrial School. _ . - , Sub-inspector Ecclcs said this girl aacapo with two others who had been remanded to appear on Friday. lie asked for a similar remand in the present case, so that (he three girls could appear on Friday to answer a charge of theft. A remand was granted accordingly, MAINTENANCE. Tho case was resinned in which application was made for an increase in an order against John James Gilbert for the support of Ids wife and two children. Mr C. J. It. White appeared for the complainant, and Mr B. S. Irwin for de-fendant.-—Tho defence was a. denial of paternity of a second child, born since tho order was made. At the initial hearing tho wife stated that defendant had visited her on occasions, hut defendant denied having gone to the house.—Evidence was given for complainant by Elizabeth Black, who said that sho had mm Gilbert coming to his wife’s place on a number of occasions. She admitted sho had not spoken to Mrs Gilbert for two years.—Defendant denied that ho had over been near the place.—His Worship accepted the statement of the witness Black as sufficient corroboration of tho wife’s evidence to fixUiability.-—The order was increased from £2 to £2 10s per week, defendant also being ordered to pay solicitor’s fee, (£2 2s). Application was made for a separation, maintenance, and guardianship _ order against Alexander Allison by his wife (represented by Mr IT. Braseh), and there was also a complaint by the police that ho had failed to provide maintenance for his seven children in tho Industrial School. —Evidence was given by Evelyn. Allison that her husband was addicted to drink, and had been fined for breach of a prohibition order. Ho did not provide her with adequate maintenance, and on one occasion struck her a hard blow. Her children had to he sent to tho Industrial School because sho was unable to support them after her husband left her. •—Constable M’Whitty, of Milton (where the’parties had lived), gave corroborative evidence, and described defendant as “an absolute drunken waster.”—Defendant, in reply to the sub-inspcctor, admitted thiit he had made no inquiries regarding his children after ho left his wife. Ho was not able to earn very much because he had injured his arm.—His Worship said there was no question, that defendant was an absolute drunken waster, and as the result of his own conduct had crippled himself in ono arm. He had ignored his duties towards his wife and family. Defendant would bo ordered to pay Is a week towards tho support of each child. Tho application for separation and maintenance allowance would also he granted, and maintenance for tho wife fixed at 15s a week, with solicitor’s fee (£2 2s). Defendant would also bo '.sentenced to two (months’ imprisonment, with hard;}abpr».