POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19713, 14 November 1927, Page 6

POLICE COURT

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 14. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.)' FRAUD ALLEGED. Hiding her face, from view by means of her coat, Martivia Franklin appeared to answer two charges—that on November 12, at Invercargill, by incurring a liability, obtained taxi hire valued at £7 2s 6d from Alexander Calder by means of fraud, and, further, by obtaining a liability obtained taxi hire valued at £ls 10s from Alfred John Banks by means of fraud. Chief-detective Cameron asked for a remand to Invercargill until November 18. The accused was arrested yesterday, She had just arrivedin Dunedin in a taxi hired at Invercargill by falsely representing that she bad money, and had left it at an hotel in Invercargill. As a matter of fact, she was penniless. The accused was remanded until No< vombor 18 to appear at Invercargill. DEFENCE CASES. A charge against Esmond Robert M‘Ara of failing to return military equipment was dismissed subject to payment of costs. Francis Morris Hancock, who was charged with failing to deliver up equipment, the property of tho Defence Department, valued at £1 9s 7d, was ordered to pay that amount and costs (10s). DRUNKENNESS. John Willis, charged with drunkenness and a breach of his prohibition order,-did not appear, and was lined 20s, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment, on each charge. ASSAULT. Martha Sampson was charged wiili assaulting Margaret Wilkinson on October 27. Defendant pleaded guilty. The Senior-sergeant said that defendant went to Mrs Wilkinson’s house, and, having knocked at the door, said that if she were not admitted she would break the window. It seemed that, previous to this, there bad been a bit of a. sparring match between the two parties concerned, and defendant had declared that she bad called on Mrs Wilkinson to make friends. When she was admitted to the house she patted Mrs Wilkinson on the shoulder and then announced that she would kill her. Defendant struck Mrs Wilkinson with a walking stick. The latter rushed outside with defendant following' her. Finally defendant was escorted off the premises by some of tho neighbors. Mr Irwin stated that it was unfortunate that those two women should have had a difference over something very little. Ho thought there would bo uo further trouble. The injuries done to Mrs Wilkinson were slight. Tlie Magistrate fined defendant 2ll>. costs (225), and medical expenses (£2 11s). REMISSION OF ARREARS. Tho case against William Smith Dryden, previously adjourned, came before the court. Defendant was charged with disobedience in that bo was £Bl. in arrears in connection with a maintenance order. Ho applied for variation of (bo order and remission of arrears. Mr O'Shea stated that the man was out of work, and be did not know what prospect bo bad of getting any.—The Magistrate ordered that the amount of arrears (£SI) be remitted, the charge of disobedience being withdrawn WRONG CAR NUMBER William Henry Hamilton and Leslie John Roberts were charged with driving a car with the wrong number affixed to it. Roberts did not appear. The Senior-sergeant said that on October 23 Roberts was found driving a car in High street which had no front number fixed to it. On being asked by a constable where the number was, defendant replied “ Inside.” A number was attached to the back of the car. Roberts said in the presence of Hamilton: “To tell you the truth, this is not the right number of tho car.” Roberts, who had no license to drive, said that he was sitting alongside Hamilton, who had one, and therefore lie thought he himself did not require one. Roberts had been before the court previously for a similar offence. Tho number bad been changed from one car to another, but it was not known how long ago lliis had taken place Tho Magistrate said that both Hamilton and Roberts must have known that tlie number was wrong. For affixing a wrong number Hamilton was fined 10s and costs, and Roberts 40s and costs. Roberts, for being unregistered. was convicted and discharged. MAINTENANCE CASE.

John York Bevars was proceeded against on a complaint for separation and maintenance orders on the grounds of wilful failure to maintain, this case having been previously adjourned. Mr Irwin, who appeared for the complainant, said that wuen the case was previously before the court defendant had agreed to pay £1 a week, but ho had paid nothing. The defendant had made accusations against the complainant’s character, but these she had answered quite satisfactorily. Mr D. C. Muir, who represented the defendant, said that defendant had maintained his wife as long as he could. She had left him without any reasonable cause, and he would have taken her back. But tor the fact that the defendant was out of work, he would willingly have obeyed the order. Ho was married only a few months ago, and then had been in steady work lor 20 years, having £BOO in the bank. This had all gone in the first few months except £3OO. Evidence along these lines was given by the defendant, who stated that he was unable to find work. The case was adjourned for one week to enable defendant to make arrangements for maintenance and provision of a home.