CITY POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 18810, 8 December 1924, Page 1

CITY POLICE COURT

Monday, December 8. (Before Mr 11. W. Bundle, S.M.) WARNING UNHEEDED. William Henry Smith was charged with the disobedience of ' his maintenance order made in respect to his wife, the arrears amounting to £153. Senior-sergeant Mathieson said that the defendant had been released conditionally on him reporting himself to the police at Tarras, but he had not done so. Ho had also squandei’ed the money that he had earned. Mr White, who appeared for Smith, said that lie had been released on certain stringent conditions. The earliest that he should have reported was Saturday night, and counsel understood that he had been arrested last evening when lie went to the police station to report. Accused’s wife wanted him to be at liberty in order to got some money from him. The Magistrate said that the defendant had previously changed his name, and when he appeared in court he had been warned that the case would bo adjourned under certain strict conditions. In face of that, however, he got drunk and squandered his money. The only place for him was gaol, and he would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The Defendant: Can I go to Paparua ? The Senior-sergeant said that prisoners were only kept in the Dunedin gaol for three months, and the man would probably bo sent to Paparua. REMANDED. Percy Frederick Galland was charged with tho breach of ’the terms of his probation order. Detective Beer said that the accused was released on probation last January for theft. He asked that he should be remanded until to-morrow, in order that he could be dealt with by Mr Bartholomew. Accused was remanded in custody until to-morrow. MAINTENANCE ARREARS. Robert John Horn, who was £ll6 in arrears on a maintenance order, was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, tho warrant to be suspended as long as ho paid £2 per week oil the current order and 6s per week off arrears. CRASHED THROUGH FENCE. Richard Wallace was charged with having negligently driven a motor car on Queen’s drive on November 11 last. Constable Smith said that defendant crashed through a fence, and came to grief .against the verandah of a house, causing considerable damage. Tho defendant said that tho lady who owned the house said that the fence had been an oye-sore for years. He attempted to avoid a collision at the intersection of Queen’s drive and Grey street. He, did not have the car for long. The. Magistrate: “ No, if you drove tho car like that you wouldn’t have it very long.” His Worship said that it was dear from the evidence that tho car must have been going at a high speed. Defendant. was fined 4Qs and costs, the magistrate remarking that defendant would probably have many oilier expenses to meet. DRUNKENNESS. A. first offender was fined 20s, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. NOXIOUS WEEDS. Rupert Fountain (inspector of noxious weeds) proceeded against A. Bradficld for failing to clear gorse from his property. Tlie defendant, who was represented by Mr W. G. Hay, pleaded guilty. Counsel said that only five acres were affected. He asked that the case should be adjourned in order to give the defendant a chance to do tho work during the holidays. The case was adjourned until January 30. James J. Friend was also charged with having failed to clear his property of gorse at Gallon Hill. The Inspector said that the gorse was a menace to adjoining properties. This case was also adjourned until January 30. Michael Hour (Mr B. S. Irwin) was similarly charged in connection with his property, St. Clair Park. Defendant was fined 10s, without costs. When .similarly charged, F. W. Lyders said that his land, which was situated in the Ocean Beach district, was ns clear of broom and gorse as the floor of the court. The magistrate adjourned the case until January 30 to give the defendant a chance to carry out the work. In the case against W. J. Watkins, the inspector said that the defendant had promised to clear the land by Saturday. This case was also held over until January 30. INSULTING WORDS. Frederick Arthur Pearce (Mr Callan) pleaded not guilty to a charge of using insulting words in a public place —Silverton afreet, Anderson Bay, Senior-sergeant Mathia-on said that Pearce (a taxi-driver) called at the Shtel Hill Hotel on October 29, and picked up three men to take them to the (ram terminus. An argument took place as to the faro, and the men got out and a fight tool? place. A tramcar then dime along. The rnotorman remonstrated with Pearce on the way in which he was knocking one of (ho men about. It was then that the language complained of was used. The police evidence, stated briefly, was that within the hearing of passengers (including ladies) in tho tram defendant addressed offensive terms to one of his fares, ’.nd struck him, and later spoke offensively to the rnotorman of the tram, who, it was stated, retorted with a taunt about him having to get- out of the Police Force. Evidence was given by Hugh Ross, a nlnmlwr residing in Cranston street, and John Charles Paterson, a tram conductor. When Paterson had concluded his evidence. the N'liinr-seroeant asked; “Have you seen Pearce this morning?” Witness : No. Tho Senior-sergeant : Will you swear tlft on oath? Witness : 'Yes. Mr Callan interrupted hero with some ’•eniark rind the Magistrate said that it was quite improper for tho police to treat the witness as hostile in any way without the permission of tho court. The Senior-sergeant said that there —ere inconsistencies between witness's evidence and the signed statement given by him to the police. He was informed that Paterson was seen by Pearce this morning. Paterson : That is quite untrue. The -Senior-sergeant asked leave to question witness as ‘o aliened discrepancies between his evidence and his statement, but the magistrate would not allow it. -dames Alexander Ronald, a tramway rnotorman, gave evidence of the language ”«ed. There were a number of ladies in the car. To ATr Callan ; Ho could not swear that the ladies were in tho car when the language was used. C'dlan -aid that ho did not intend calling the defendant. He commented cn tho fact that the three men who had seen the trouble from a motor car had not been called by the police Counsel suggested that the whole trouble wa» clue to the injudicious interference of the rnotorman The Magistrate said that there was no doubt that the defendant M lost his

temper, and ho was not assisted in regaining it by the remark made by tho rnotorman. However, he was quite justified in preventing if possible a breach of the peace. Defendant would be convicted and fined 20s, with court costs (13a), and witnesses’ expenses (30s),