POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19617, 25 July 1927, Page 3

POLICE COURT

MONDAY, JULY 25. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) ADMITTED TO PROBATION. Walter Charles M'Combie appeared for sentence on a charge of having received from divers persons the sum ol £lB 5s 6d on terms requiring him to account for same to the Provident Life Assurance 1 Company, and fraudulently converted "the’ sums to his own use, thereby committing theft. His Worship said that the probation officer had in his report recommended probation, and he proposed to grant it. The Probation Officer (Mr J. Garbutt) suggested a, lengthy term to enable the defalcations to be made good. Accused was admitted to probation for a period of two years, restitution of £lB 5s (Id to be made by instalments, and in such time as directed by the probation officer. MAINTENANCE DEFAULTERS. George Smith was charged with disobedience of a. maintenance order and arrears amounting to £l7 IQs.—Defendant pleaded guilty, and admitted the arrears, stating that he had been out -of work for the last four months.—To the magistrate, he said he thought It was last April that he had left the corporation’s employ.—Defendant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, warrant not to issue a.s long as he paid 10s a week off the current order and 10s a week off the arears. Thomas Leslie Evans, who did not, appear, was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order and arrears amounting to £l3 18s.—Mr Irwin (who appeared for Die complainant) said that sjnee (lie .summons was issued £2 14s (5d had been paid direct. The arrears were fixed at £ll 13s Ud, and defendant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment at Invercargill, warrant to be suspended if he paid 30s a, week off the current order and 10s a week off the arrears, the first payment to be made on August 1. . Archibald Stewart did not appear to answer a charge of disobedience of a maintenance, order made at Invercargill, the arrears under which wore stated at £22 15s.—Defendant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended provided ho paid the arrears. YOUTHFUL COUPLE SEPARATED. Herbert Perks was proceeded against on a complaint for separation, maintenance, and guardianship. Mr J. B. 'Thomson appeared for the complainant, and Mr G. T. Baylce lor the defendant.' Mr Bnylee said that die case had been adjourned previously to enable the welfare of the child to bo looked to. The child had been committed to a home, defendant being ordered to pay 15s a, week towards- its upkeep. The I complainant wis eighteen years of age and the defendant was nineteen. The; complainant, had ordered goods tor her mulnor of the value of £4O in defendant's mime, and defendant was having difficulty in meeting the account. Air 'J'li ouisun ’submitted that complainant should receive some maintenance. When defendant married the girl he knew what lie was doing. The Magistrate: I don’t know that be did 1 Mr Baylce: I .understand that the girl was only fifteen when the marriage took place. “ There seems every prospect of abreach of the peace in the near iulure,’ 3 said Mr Baylce, in asking that complainant should be warned not to molest the defendant. “ Whenever one of the complainant’s family sees defendant, in the street he docs his best to provoke Perks to commit a breach of tho peace.” A separation order was granted, (lie Magistrate pointing out that under the order the parties had to keep apart. The question of the maintenance order was held over until August, 25.

SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE. That drink had been defendant’s trouble 1 all along was stated in evidence by complainant in the case against William Alexander Smith, Vho was proceeded against on a. complaint for separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders; Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the complainant, who said that she had been married twenty-two years, and had five children, three of whom were under sixteen years of age. She bad been previously separated from the defendant, but they bad come together again, and then separated once more, defendant having left the home without telling her or his intention. Separation and maintenance orders were made, defendant being ordered to pay £'3 a, week, past, maintenance amounting to £2O, and costs totalling £2 2s. An order was made giving complainant the custody of the three children.