POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 20311, 21 October 1929, Page 7

POLICE COURT

MONDAY. OCTOBER 21. i ßefore Mr H. W. Bundle. S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. A fust offender was convicted and discharged, the Sub-inspector ' stating that the defendant was going into the Public Hospital for treatment. IDLE AND DISORDERLY. Mary Agnes Hutchison was charged with being found,, drunk in Maclaggan street, and also with being an idle and disorderly person, in that she had insufficient lawful visible means of support. She pleaded guilty to both charges. ■Sub-inspector Cummings said that the ■ accused had been loitering about the streets at night, and had been keeping bad company. She had been warned repeatedly by the police. She had served a term of twelve months in the Mount Magdala Home, but did not wish to return there A sentence of three months’ imprisonment was imposed. She was convicted and discharged on the charge, ol drunkenness. ALLEGED BREAKING AND ENTERING: Frederick Leslie Black and Cyril Adams were charged with breaking and entering by night the shop of John Veitch Fogo at Mosgiel, and stealing clothing of a value of £63 9s 9d. Mr L. R. ; Simpson appeared for Adams. On the annlication of Chief-detective Cameron a remand till Wednesday was granted, bail being allowed in each case in the sum of £IOO (self) and one surety of £IOO. DANCE DISTURBANCE. “ Although it is not a thing that the court could advise, if you had got a thorough thrashing from some man at the time you would have got nothing more than you deserved,” said His Worship when summing up against Michael Bouterey, charged with_ behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place, and also with using obscene language. Represented by Mr Hanlon, the. accused pleaded guilty to each charge. Sub-inspector Cummings said that a week-end dance was in progress in Arthur street, when at about 10.30 the accused, accompanied by a lad of sixteen, who would appear in the Children’s Court, went to the hall and was refused admission. The accused had had liquor, and besides becoming disorderly he bawled out the language complained of. ■ Mr Hanlon said that-the accused was nineteen years old, and had never been in trouble before. On Saturday night lie got some drink, to which lie was unaccustomed, and made a fool of himself. He seemed to have used the language because the doorkeeper slammed the door in his face. Previously ho had had a good character. His Worship said that a young man like the accused did-not deserve much consideration when lie went disturbing people who were enjoying themselves. Mr Hanlon said that the language was used outside. The Magistrate: “'Even if there were no women near enough to hear the language, it would be hoard by decent men.” He added that he had some hesitation about not sending the accused to gaol. On the charge of disorderly behaviour no would lie convicted and discharged, ami on the charge of obscene language be would he'fined £4, in default seven days’ imprisonment. BREACH OF LICENSING ACT. Harold Hooper was charged with soliciting an order for liquor to be supplied to Stuart David Waddell at- Jlstaura, in a No-license district. Three similar charges were also laid against him, and he pleaded guilty, through Mr Hanlon, to all. Sub-inspector Cummings said that defendant was traveller for Vidal and Sons, and his duty was to sell cigars and, unfermented apple juice in the Southland district. However, he went into the Mataura district and solicited orders for wine. His employers stated that he went outside his instructions. Mr Hanlon said that defendant was married, with a family of four. Prior to the acceptance of the position of traveller for BidaTs firm he was a farmer in a northern district, but things did not go well with him, and ho took the traveller’s job. He did not know anything of any consequence with regard to the provisions of the Act. but lie was very keen on getting business. When he had to go about in No-license districts lie left his samples at the railway station. He only talked with the people about the advantages of his wine and they gave him orders. When ho heard that the police were searching for him defendant consulted tho speaker, and he told him to inform the police of his whereabouts. He gave every assistance in ins power to expedite matters and bring them before the court. Mr Hanlon assured the court that defendant had no knowledge of the Act, and had really committed the offence in ignorance of the !uu The Magistrate, He travels for a wine firm, and should know the provisions of the Act. Mr Hanlon said it was a case where defendant was well- known to the firm and had been unfortunate in connection with his farm, and he was given the job as traveller He was keen to get anything to do, and did not know anything of the Act. He made a bona fide mistake, and had no desire to do anything wrong > , _ His Worship said lie would, it that it was a case of carelessness., and would impose a fine of £3 and cßsts on the first charge and 10s and costs on each of the other charges. MAINTENANCE. Ernest Dickens was charged with being in default with respect to two maintenance orders, the arrears amounting to £73 Is 8d in both cases,—Defendant in evidence said he was earning 35s a week and his keep. He would be earning more when the shearing seasoi started.—The arrears over £2O in mu case were remitted, and defendant wai sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended provider he paid £4 on or before. November 18 and thereafter the current order anc £2 3s 4d a month until the arrears were paid off. On the other charge he was sentenced to six months’-imprison-ment: the warrant to be suspended pro vided he paid £4 on or before November 18, and thereafter £1 a month unti the arrears were paid off. John Darling was charged with being £34 10s in arrears in respect to a maintenance order.—The defendant did not appear, and after, Mr Holland had outlined the case he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, to be released on payment of the arrears. Charles Campbell was charged with being £7B 12s 6d in arrears of a maintenance order.—Mr Irwin appeared for the complainant.—The defendant gave evidence, mainly regarding Ins earnings, but the magistrate said he saw no reason why the order should not be paid.— The defendant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended as long as he paid £1 a week current maintenance and also, 2s 6d a week off the arrears.