POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 18883, 6 March 1925, Page 6

POLICE COURT

Friday, March 6. (Before Mr 11. W,. Bundle, S.M.) SETTLING AX ARGUMENT. “If there is any argument again, gbt a secluded spot and settle it,” _ said the magistrate to William Mathicson and Henry Ross, charged with fighting each other in High street. , , The police stated that the defendants commenced fighting within a- few yards of a sergeant and two constables, and wove quickly taken to the police station. They did not have time to create a disturbance. The excuse of both defendants was that they had “a bit of an argument,” though neither would say what the argument was about. Ross said they had had a couple of drinks together. Each of the defendants,_ who had been locked up overnight, was lined 20s, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. WARRANT FOR ARREST.

Robert Keen was charged with the theft of a Hisston saw, valued at 14s, the property of George Phimislcr Harold. Hie accused did not appear. Chief-dctcclivc Lewis said that the accused “ appeared to be a littie bashful about coming to the court, as ho had failed to put in an appearance when the case was called previously. On that occasion there was no evidence of persona,l service, but there -had now been pcisonal service. The Magistrate made an order for a warrant to issue, the accused to be brought before the court on Monday. TELEPHONE CABINET EPISODE,

Benjamin Taylor was charged with having wilfully broken a pane of glass in a telephone cabinet situated at the coinci of (icorco and I J iLt stveots on Dcccmbci £-4. A." similar charge was preferred against Ernest 'Woods in respect to the same cabinet. . Taylor did not appear, but the defendant Woods entered a pica of not guilt v. ' ('unstable Walt said that at 6.10 on Chi Limas Eve he noticed both (hdcm.atU;. at the corner of George and Pitt streets. Woods was inside a te.ephone cabinet, and Taylor was outside living to open the door. In the struggle between the two men a pane of glass in the door was smashed. Woods stated that. Taylor had smashed the glass. Senior-sergeant Mathioson stated that the defendants had promised to make goou the damage (6s 4d). The Magistrate dismissed the charge against Woods, remarking that there was no evidence against him. Taylor was fined 20s and costs (12s). BREACH OF ORDER. Thomas Henry Smith was charged with breaking His prohibition order. He admitted he had had two beers in a public bar. Defendant was warned by the magistrate that if he again appeared on such a charge ho would be sent to Roloroa. A "fine of 40. s was imposed, with tho alternative of seven days’ imprisonment. PRO RATION GR A NT' ED. Stanley George Russell, aged nineteen, appeared For sentence on a charge oMlic theft of £2B 3s 9d, the property of Fred, crick Edward Pcrcival Foster. His Worship said the Probation Officer had recommended probation, and lie intended to give effect to that recommendation. Russell was admitted to probation for two years, and was ordered to pay the £2B 3s 9d within six months by way of instalments as the Probation Officer directed, the latter to have control of defendant's earnings. UNSPHAYED MANURE. Robert ML'ormick was charged with, on February 25, failing to .spray manure in his stable with the prescribed mixture. _ Defendant did not appear, and, after hearing Inspector King, tho magistrate imposed a line of 20s, with costs (7s). BY-LAW'S TIIANSGRESSED. “ Guilty under extenuating circumstances,’’ said James Henderson Wilson, in reply to a charge of driving his motor lorry on the wiong side when turning from High street into Princes street. He said a nnnibcT of drays in front of the Grand Hotel and the Mornington car impeded him.—The police denied there were any extenuating circumstance-, and said defendant ignored the signals of the constable on point duty.---A fine of 20s, with costs (7s), was imposed. Robert Brown pleaded guilty to a charge that being in charge of a motor car iie failed to obey the signal oi n constable on point duty in Princes street on February .11.---The detendanl- stated that he misunderstood the constable s signal.— He was lined 10s. Richard James .Sprague, tor allowing a horse to wander, was lined 5s and 7s costs. AN INTERESTING POINT. Application was made for a maintenance. separation, and guardianship order against Patrick Gremi. Mr White, for the wife, said that when the case last came betore the court- Ills Worship had given a hint that the wife should return to the husband. She had not done so. and was desinuu-. Counsel suggested that a maintenance older should lie made. Mr W. O. Hay, fur 1 Hi* husband, opposed the application. He said the man had given no cause for Ins wile to leave home. Mr White produced a me-beal certificate to show ■ that the wife v. as not in good health, Blio was not able to work. Mr Hay said tho proper place the wife was at homo, where sin; cmiiil get proper attention while she was ill. the allegations set out in tin; intormation had not been proved, and counsel submitted that His Worship had no jurisdiction to make an order. Mr White, said the wife had been in bad health for years. While she was in hospital some years ago application had inn! to be made against (he husband for maintenance. The Magistrate adjourned the matter for a week to enable him to look into the question. He said ho would not think of making an order for separation on the facts which previously came before him. Ho was not satisfied (here was jurisdiction, as the wife left the husband without due cause. DRUNKENNESS. Martin DaVls, who did not appear, was tilled the amount of his hail (20s), with the alternative of twenty-four hours’ imprisonment. r/ ‘

MOTOR OFFENCES. j Charles Grant Graham (Mr Baylec) was 1 charged with having negligently driven a motor car in Castle street on February 5 last. Norman William Street, aged fourteen, said that some time alter l J o clock on the evening of February 5 he was knocked down by a motor ear at the corner of iStnort and Castle streets. 'I he motorist did not blow his horn. His right shoul- j der, arm, and leg had been injured. Charles Swinscm Hope, a taxi proprietor, said that lie saw the defendant just prior lo the accident, and ho appeared to be in in hurry to pass him. The driver of tho car did not appear to be looking at the hoy when tho accident took place. Witness was right behind defendant at the time. Sergeant M'C.arthy said that he interviewed the defendant some time after the accident, and oblain-cd a statement from him. Mr Baylee submitted that, there was no evid cnee of negligence whatever, and he asked that Urn ca.so should bn dismissed. All Hie evidence showed that the defendant had been travelling at between eight and ten miles an hour, whilst ho had pulled up promptly. He contended that there had been negligence on the part of the boy. Tho Magistrate said that the prosecution alleged that the hoy had been run over, whilst there was evidence that the driver was looking towards the railway station just before he struck tho boy. The defendant, in evidence, stated that he had kept a careful look-out when reaching Anzac Square. After striking the hoy ho pulled up in about a car’s length. Witness and other taxi-drivers

asked the boy vdbeiber be was liuri. or not, and bo replied that b.o wasn’t. He had admitted before his father that ho (the boy) was responsible for the accident. Cecil iWcivnl Street, father of the boy, stated that be did not bear his son make a statement to the. effect that ho was to blame for the accident.

The Magistrate said that if the case for the prosecution rested solely on the evidence of the boy the defendant, no doubt, would be entitled to have the rase dismissed. Hie boy bad acted very carelessly, and, to a certain extent, lie was to blame for, having been knocked down, lint ho bad also to deal with (be matter from another point of view, and that was as to whether the defendant bad driven carelessly at the time. Evidence bad been given by the. witness Hope to the effect that the defendant Imd passed him at twenty miles an hour, and the probabilities were that Ilie defendant went at this speed past the Law Courts, ami slowed down on reaching the intersection. Ho considered it was on extremely dangerous thing f or taxi-drivers to pick up fares at that spot, and Ibis s alement lent support to the contention lia he defendant was not watching the rathe, but _\vas looking for fares T He had no hesitation in finding that defendant bad acted carelessly in not seeing (he boy before lie did. In fixing the penaltv, however, be would have to take fido consideration the fact that the bov bad born extremely careless.

The defendant was fined 40s, witnesses’ expenses (30a) and court costs (Ins).

Hugh O’Kane was charged with driving a motor lorry at a speed dangerous to the public, and with failing "to slop bis vehicle after an accident had occurred. Mr G. J. Kelly represented defendant, who pleaded not guilty to the former charge and guilty to the latter charge. Constable Harris said that on January 14 ho was (ravelling on a north-bound ear. Near Paltillo’s photo shop lie noticed a lorry on the left side of the road coming in towards the town. It was (raxdling at a greater speed than the. car. 'lbo right-hand side of the lorry bit the front of the car and went straight on. Wii.nes.s_ thought the speed was from fifteen to twenty miles an hour. Scon afterwards by witness, defendant said be bad been trying to dodge, a boy on a bicycle. Witness was standing'on (he front of (lie car, and jumped hack- to avoid bej’ur bit. V. ilHaiti Havid Poole, motorman. said the f. ramcar was damaged. Witness thought the lorry was travelling at about twenty miles per hour. Several other witnesses gave similar evidence.

Air Kelly said (bat bad defendant imt swerved towards the car lie would have run down the man on (be bicycle. Defedanf; said he had no idea he bad done any damage to the train ; he thought il was only a. glancing blow.

To the senior sergeant defendant admitted that be took a risk, but he thought any motorist would have swerved in similar circumstances. Hu was travelling at twelve miles an hour.

James Beimelt, who was in the lorry with defendant, estimated its speed at twelve, miles an hour. Another young fellow who was on the lorry said it was a ease of either killing tho boy or hitting the train.

The Magistrate decided that defendant was not proceeding at a reasonable speed, and imposed a fine of 40s, with costs (2/s). In the ease- of the. other charge His’ Worship recorded a conviction only.