POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 18503, 10 December 1923, Page 6

POLICE COURT

Monday, December 10. (Before Mr H. ,W. Bundle, S.M.); DISOBEDIENT SEAMEN. Two sailors from the Turakiaa named Malcolm Malveney and William Dickson were charged with having disobeyed the lawful commands of an officer while on the high seas. Evidence was given by the chief officer, the second engineer, and the captain, and from this it appeared that there was somo argument between Dickson and another seaman named M'Kinnon in the wheelhouse. The chief officer went to see what was wrong, and Dickson told him lie was finished with the ship, and left the wheel. The chief allowed him fifteen minutes to cool down, and then pointed out the seriousness of his action, and advised him to turn to. Dickson (who was quite sober) refused, and the matter was reported to the captain. In the case of Mulveney, a man was sent to tell him to turn to, but ho refused. He, however, turned to next day. All the trouble had occurred on Saturday, when the ship was on the way from Lyttelton to Dunedin. The captain said both men boro excellent records up to the present trouble. Tho offence of refusing duty at sea, however, was a very serious one.

Tho defendant Mulveney said that he had had a drop of whisky, and was not sober enough to turn to. He had never been in tho habit of refusing duty, and this was the first time ho had been inside a police station.

Dickson said that the man he went to relievo at tho wheel was drunk, and went to strike him. “ This case will probably clear up some of the mud that has been going about,” said witness. Senior-sergeant Mathieson pointed out that at the time of the offences the ship was partially disabled, the steering gear having gone slightly wrong. This made the matter more serious.

Tho Magistrate said that refusing orders at sea was a most serious offence. Dickson seemed to be laboring under some grievance, and there certainly had been some disturbance. That did not justify any man refusing orders, however. Dick’ son’s previous record appeared to be an excellent one, and, seeing that he had been locked up over night, he would bo t

convicted and discharged. In the case of Mulveney, there was no definite evidence of the man’s condition. For the reasons stated in the case of Dickson, he would be convicted and discharged. SHEDDING VALUELESS CHEQUES. Albert William Grant (Mr Barrowclough) pleaded guilty to three 'charges of obtaining goods and money by means of valueless cheques. He bad been before the court previously, and remanded.

Chief-detective Lewis said that accused had represented a Christchurch firm as a traveller. In November last he was in Dunedin, and while staying at a private hotel possessed himself of a cheque book belonging to another boarder. From this he issued the cheques, and obtained goods and money from William Schneideman, Albert Thomas Williams, and William M. Birrell. Accused, whosa health had been affected by war service, was a married man with two children, and his wife was practically destitute. He stood committed for sentence already on other similar charges, and would be dealt with by the Supreme Court.

Mr Barrowclough said the position was an unfortunate one, especially for the young man’s wife and children, who were apparently in desperate circumstance':, though temporary arrangements had been made for their relief. Accused had cer-

tainly misled the police over these charges, and there was no excuse for that. Still, punishment would fall most heavily on his dependents. The Magistrate said that as accused would appear before the Supreme Court for sentence on other charges, be would wait till that matter had been dealt with, and accused was remanded till Friday next. OTHER CASES. Complaints by the St. Kilda Borough Council led to a round-up of motorists who left their cars without lights in public thoroughfares in that suburb. As a result Charles Baker, Robert Scott Mood/, and Aubrey Elliott Wright were each fined ss. with costs, and Charles Hunt, Claude Mervyn Waters, and William Robert Waters ordered to pay costs (7s). A second charge against Charles Hunt was dismissed. Thomas Gray, for allowing his chimney to catch fire, was fined 10s, with costs (7s). Frederick William Agnew, for boarding a tram while it was in motion, was fined 5s and costs (7s).