POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19019, 14 August 1925, Page 5

POLICE COURT

FRIDAY, AUGUST 14. {Before Mr 11. \\\ Bundl'd, S.M.) BREACH OF ORDER. James Bell Laurie pleaded guilty to having been found on licensed premises daring the currency of a prohibition order.—Sub-inspector O’Halloran said that the order was taken out in Auckland, and the man had evidently come down here, where he would not he known. Ho was a chronic drunkard, and had just been released from Roto Roa.—The Probation Officer suggested that defendant might ho given a chance.—The Magistrate warned defendant and fined him 20s, with costs (7s). DRUNKENNESS. When Lewis Alexander McDonald was before the court yesterday ho was warned by the magistrate that if _he nijido an early reappearance he would ho severely dealt!) with. McDonald lost no time in qualifying for severity, lor ho was back this morning again ou a charge of drunkenness.—The Subinspector said (hat there was no doubt t.bo man was an habitual drunkard. He had been previously convicted on •three occasions within lie past, six months. Defendant liiniscll now asked that he ho sent' to the island.--McDon-ald was convicted and ordered to ho detained at Rolo Roa for a period of twelve months. INSULTING "WORDS.

Robert. Leonard Martin was charged villi having used insulting words in Vernal street, South Dunedin. Defendant was represented by Mr R- S. M.. Sinclair, and pleaded guilty. Constable Brownlie said that at 6J.i p.m. on July 25 he saw four men going past the Kensington Hotel, and they turned into Vernal street. Witness and Constable Watkins noticed a. lorry two doprs away from defendant s house. The lorry "was unlight,od, and witness and Constable Watkins went over to make inquiries about ii. The defendant asked them: “ What’s up here? What’s the police doing hanging about here?” Later on he advised Ins companion not to “ shake hands with the police.” Ho also stated that he would get one of the Drainage Board’s hurricane lamps. Constable \\ iitkins soid that the doCendant was under the influence ol liquor at the time. Mr Sinclair said that it was admitted that insulting words had been used, but only amongst the defendant’s own friends. He also asked that an order should be made lor the suppression ol defendant's name. The Magistrate' said that the police had to be protected. Ho would take into consideration the fact that there had not been a largo number present. If there had been a crowd he would have had no hesitation in sending the defendant to gaol. He inflicted a fine of 40s and 7s costs. The Magistrate stated that he would not consider counsel’s plea regarding the suppression of the name.