POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 20973, 11 December 1931, Page 10

POLICE COURT

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11. • (Before Mr H. IV. Bundle, S.M.) IDLE AND DISORDERLY. Elizabeth Gowie was charged with being idle and disorderly in that she Lad insufficient lawful, visible means of support. She pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Vaughan said he had known the defendant for two or three years, and had knowrt her to do no work. She had been frequenting hotels in Maclaggan street. He had been called to lier house on a number of occasions in consequence of her making a disturbance. He questioned her earlier this month, when she said she drew a pension of 25s a week from the estate of her father, hut he had found that to be untrue. As far as he knew she Lad no means, and was always_ in a more or less half-drunken condition. Constable M'Grail, who arrested the defendant, gave corroborative evidence. Detective Jenvey said be had known the woman for six years, and her companions were women of bad repute. After the defendant had given evidence, she was convicted and remanded in custody till Monday to see if a , suitable place could ho found for her to go to. THEFT BV YOUTH. David Stewart was charged with the theft of tennis shoes valued at 4s, the property of Thomas Cairney; with the ; theft of £6 in money, the property of Alister Joseph Robertson; .with the theft of a camera valued at £B, the property of William Moynihan; and with the theft of two bottles of whisky, the' property of some person unknown. He pleaded guilty. Detective-sergeant Nuttall said Die accused was before the court in February last, when he was admitted to two y'ears’ probation. He went to Middleraarch, where he was employed ■on.'a farm, and while there be committed four further thefts. Counsel for the defendant said the accused was only eighteen years of age, ! and he did not think it could be said that he was anything but frank _ in his statements to the police. Restitution had been made in each case. The boy was a good worker, and had reported regularly. His father was willing to look after him, and a farmer was prepared to give him work. The probation officer thought the hoy might be given one last chance. The' Magistrate said that in view of ihq father’s undertaking he would give the accused one further chance. He would be convicted and admitted to probation for three years. THEFT OF WOOL. Jessie Woodward Williams _ was charged’with stealing fifty bobbins of wool; valued at £2, the property of Ross and Glendiniug Ltd., and Adelaide May j O'Connell nvas charged with receiving the stolen property. Each of the accused pleaded guilty, and Detective-sergeant Nuttall said that the accused Williams had for the past fourteen years been employed at the Roslyn Mills. For twelve months past she had been in the habit of taking wool from the mills to her home, the accused O’Connell calling there for it. O’Connell made her living knitting socks, and was we)l award that Williams was stealing the wool. _ _ -j Counsel for the accused it wds disastrous to see two women who had been living respectable lives before the court on a charge of theft. He stated that O’Connell was nlaking a particular pair of stockings and desired a special kind of wool. O’Connell asked .Williams to get it and that was the commencement of the trouble, which had been 'going on ever, since. ' The accused were convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called on within twelve months, the Magistrate refusing counsel’s application for suppression of the names. CITY FIRM CHARGED. J. R. M'Kenzie Ltd. pleaded guilty to a charge of conducting a lottery. Detective-sergeant Nuttall said the firm inserted an advertisement in the ‘ Star to the effect that on a certain day, with every twentieth tin of a certain tobacco sold, an extra tin would be given. When the police pointed out to : the manager of the firm that an offence was being committed, it was immediately stopped. ’I Counsel for the; defence said the offence was committed in ignorance. A' fine of 20s and costs was imposed. BREACH OF PROHIBITION / ORDER. Thomas Henry Smith was fined 10s 'and costs, in default twenty-four hours’ imprisonment, on a charge of procuring liquor while prohibited. UNLAWFULLY ON LICENSED PREMISES. Angus Cameron Was fined 10s and 'costs on a charge of being unlawfully , on licensed premises. Charged with being unlawfully on licensed premises after hours, John M'Donald was convicted. For being on licensed premises while prohibited he was fined 10s and costs. David Gunning was charged with being unlawfully on licensed premises after hours and was fined 10s and costs. John Thomas Turnbull and William D. Wilson were each fined 20s and costs . for a similar offence. , MOTORISTS DEALT WITH. Leonard John Booth was , fined the ■ amount of court costs (10s) fbr being an unlicensed,motor driver. George Fitzmaurice, , charged with driving an unlighted motor van and 'i with being an unlicensed motor driver, was fined 20s and costs on the latter charge, and convicted and discharged on ■ the former. Lindsay, Haworth was charged with driving a motor truck without having the assigned number plates attached, ■ with driving an unlicensed truck, and with failing to prpduce his license to drive when asked for it. On the first charge he ,was fined 20s and costs, and was convicted on the other charges. Robert Bruce Johnston was fined 5s and costs for leaving an nnlighted vehicle on the street. For driving a motor cycle without a license, Albert James Knox was convicted and discharged. John Robert Nimmo was fined 10s and costs for driving a car without a license. _ For driving a motor cycle without having a driver’s license and not having the prescribed lights on it, Leslie John Roberts was fined 20s and costs on ono charge and convicted on the other. UNLICENSED WIRELESS SETS. George Richards was fined 20s and costs for having an unlicensed wireless set. A similar offence cost Alfred Luval Robinson 10s and costs. HOSE-USERS CHARGED. Harry Gillan was charged witli using water in a wasteful manner. He pleaded not guilty. A waterman for the City Corporation said he visited the defendant’s place at 9.15 at night when a- hose, was playing and there was nobody amending it. Ho asked the defendant to turn the .water off and ho did so*

The defendant said there had been no waste of water on his property. Ho asked the previous witness if there was any restriction on the use of hoses and he said there was not. The Magistrate said the prosecution would serve as a warning to ratepayers generally that water must be used in a reasonable manner, and any person using it to an unreasonable extent Was liable to be proceeded against. In the present case the defendant said he was in control.of the hose, and he would accept that, ■ Alexander Hugh Scott was similarly charged. ' A corporation waterman said he saw the defendant playing his hose about his garden. Witness asked defendant to turn down the pressure a little to help those on the higher level. Defendant used some strong language towards him and ordered him off the property. He said if witness and his companion did not get off the place he would turn the hose on them. Defendant was doing no good , with tha water used. _ ’ A fine of 20s and costs was imposed. CHARGES OF THEFT. Alfred Marsh pleaded not guilty to stealing a pair of boy’s pants and other goods of a total value of 3s 7d from Woolworths Ltd. and AVilliam Fisher not guilty to a charge ,of stealing a bag of chocolates and other goods of a total value of Is 4 Id, the property of Woolworth’s Ltd. Constable Christianson said that at 7 p.m. on November 13 last he was on duty at AVoohvorth’s, that being the date of opening. He saw the defendant Fisher take a stick of chocolate and a bag of sweets from the counter, and walk out of the shop without offering to pay for them. AVitness arrested him and took him to the police station, Marsh accompanying them. The goods in Fisher’s pocket were, unwrapped. AVitness asked Marsh if he had any of Woolworth’s property in bis possession, and he produced a pair of pants and a bag of sweets from his pocket. Asked if be bad a receipt coupon, he said he had given it back to the girl in the shop. To counsel for the accused, witness said that Marsh, told him he had purchased the goods from Woqlworlh’s. Roy Thomas Hatton, senior foreman at Woolworth’s, said that the system in vogue at AAteol worth’s was that the customer took the article to the counter where the girl stated its price, took the money from the customer, partially wrapped 'the parcel, and put a cash register docket inside. Counsel submitted that there was no evidence against Marsh, the Magistrate stating that there was not sufficient evidence to show that Marsh stoic the articles. The charge against Marsh was dismissed. Hilda Fisher, wife of the accused Fisher, said she bad searched her husband’s overco.at which bad a bole in ono of the pockets. She found a ticket inside the lining. (Proceeding.)