POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19327, 13 August 1926, Page 5

POLICE COURT

FRIDAY, AUGUST 13. (Before Mr BL W. Bundle, S.M.) THEFT CHARGE DISMISSED. ' Albert Harris and George Smith were charged that on or about July 25 they stole three bags of rabbitskius valued at £35, belonging to someone unknown. The accused (for whom Mr Hanlon appeared) pleaded not guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily. James Martin Kay, manager of the firm of H. V. Haddock, Ltd., said that on July 24 he looked into the Oregon timber yard of the firm and saw nothing unusual there. John Andrew Olsen said he went into -he Oregon yard on the morning of July 26, where he found three bags of rabbitskins hidden between two stacks of timber. It was not a fenced property. Detective Farquharson said be visited the timber yard and removed the bags. He put three dummies in their place —bags filled up with shavings, with only one or two rabbitskins. Detective Russell said he went to the yard on the Monday afternoon with Constable Williamson. Witness and the constable secreted themselves behind some timber, and soon after 7 p.m. they heard footsteps approaching from the street, and two men came up, one of whom witness recognised as the accused Harris. One of the men bent down and felt the bag, saying “ they are hero all right, but they are not the same as when wo left them last night.” Witness and his companion then stepped out aud took the accused, to the police station. They said they knew nothing about the rabbitskins, and that they had gone there to collect two bottles of beer. “ Tbcjre is absolutely no case against cither of these men,” said Mr. Hanlon. “ The goods are not yet known to have been stolon, because the owner is not known. In any case, the accused did not have them in their possession, for they were dummy bags that were there.” Chief-detective Lewis said they had not been able to find the owner. The Magistrate said the evidence was not sufficient, aud the charge was dismissed. The question was raised of bringing tho case on again if the owner of the skins was found. Mr Hanlon said that the men could not be tried twice on tho same charge, and the Magistrate said that the ordinary consequences of the dismissal of tho case must apply. “A FAMILY SQUABBLE.” A family difference between a husband and a brother concerning the issuing of a prohibition order against the wife led to Eric Lenex Bain and Henry Matthews being charged with fighting in Stuart street. According to Sergeant Dunlop (who prosecuted) and Mr J. N. Thompson (who appeared for Bain), tho throe met at tho court office, and on adjourning to the street tho two men began a scuffle. Unfortunately for them, the affair was observed i by Constable Garbntt through tho window of the court office, and the men wore arrested. Sergeant Dunlop said tho matter was not a serious one. The Magistrate (to accused): If you wish to have a family squabble find a private spot. You are convicted and , discharged. MAINTENANCE OF A GRANDCHILD.

Hugh Don, 3 Port Chalmers fn'sberman, was proceeded against' by his daughter-in-law, Francos May Don (Air E. J. Anderson), who asked for an order for the maintenance of defendant’s grandchild, of whom she is the mother. It was explained that defendant’s son had married complainant and then deserted her hist November. She was not able to work to maintain the child of tho marriage. Her husband had never been located. After hearing evidence His Worship on id it was always with the greatest reluctance that ho made an order against a grandparent, and in this ca.so he sympathised with the defendant. However, the child must bo maintained, and he would make an order for tho payment of 5s weekly. It was mentioned that 5s was also being paid by the grandmother of fiio child, who was divorced and now married again. DANGEROUS “ PRACTICE,” Complaint by a South Dunedin resident regarding John Cousins’s conduct led to police investigation concerning the latter’s possession of a rifle. Asked by Constable M'llobio whether be “ ever had a shot,” Cousins had replied : “Yes, for practice, sometimes in the bedroom.”—On a charge of failing to notify tho arms officer of his change of address Cousins was convicted, and an order made for the confiscation of the rifle. “ COULDN’T HELP IT.”

James Miller George Johnson (Mr White) pleaded guilty to charges of procuring liquor while prohibited, and entering licensed premises while prohibited.

Sergeant Dunlop said that defendant had been scon by Constable Macartney going into the Southern Hotel, where the man had a beer. This was a breach of the conditions of his release on probation. Mr White said defendant was dealt with a few weeks ago on a charge of false pretences and admitted to probation. Had ho been able to got away to the country it would have been all right, but he got work in the city. Defendant said he had been unwell and “ could not help ” going into the hotel for a little stimulant.

| The Magistrate said that ho was very I reluctant to extend further leniency I I/O defendant. It would be a matter i for the probation officer whether steps ! would bo taken to charge defendant j with breach of his probation. On the : charge of procuring liquor he would be ' fined 20s, with costs (7s); the second , charge .would be withdrawn. 1 A CHINESE CHARGED, j Sue Ham was charged with having | in his possession an unstamped sc£ of | weights and a scale, j Mr Irwin, for the defendant, pleaded ! guilty. ’ The Inspector said ft was Important 'that the Act should be obeyed. He did not think there was any intention to i defraud, or that the public had boon | defrauded. | Mr Irwin said the sot of scales in ! question was on the counter at the 1 side of the shop where goods were kept , which did not need weighing. On the i other side there was quite ah elabor- | ate set of scales. Sue IT:tm was quite ■ prepared that the old scales should be confiscated. The charge was dismissed, the scales to bo confiscated. * BY-LAWS BROKEN. William John Daniel Barker, who : had cycled on a footpath, was fined os , and costs. A like penalty was in* | Aided on Walter Titchener. I Peter Dougall, for riding a cycle after dark without a. light was fined : ss, with costs 7s. ! For driving a motor car without a light Robert Gardner was fined 5s and costs. A like penalty was inflicted on Donald O’H.ara and Margaret Stemhouse Phillips. ■e-mond Smaill was fined 10s and costs for driving a motor ear without lights, and a like amount for riding an unligliled bicycle. • UNLICENSED DRIVER. For being •the_ unlicensed driver of a motor vehicle in _ Broughton street, Herbert Thomas Gilchrist was fined 40s and costs. Sergeant Dunlop said that in March defendant had had his license cancelled, and had been disqualified from obtaining another for two years, on a

charge 6f being drunk in charge of a car. The Magistrate pointed out to defendant that ilio prohibition from, driving was absolute. DRUNKENNESSMartin Joyce, described as an old offender, whose most recent previous conviction was on July 2(3, pleaded guilty to a charge of drunkenness in Fleet street. His convictions totalled fortysix. The magistrate ordered defendant to get back to his work in the country, and to that end entered a conviction, and ordered Joyce to come up for sentence if called upon within one week. CHIMNEY FIRES. Allan Bremnor, for allowing i!w chimney at his business premises to catch fire, was fined 20s, with costs.— On similar charges Harold Handforth was fined 10s, with costs, and Alfred Teasdalo ss, with costs.