POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21009, 25 January 1932, Page 1

POLICE COURT

MONDAY, JANUARY 25. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) WIFE MOLESTATION. Herbert Daniel Kennedy pleaded “ guilty under provocation ” to molesting his wife during the currency of a separation order. The plea was accepted as one of “ not guilty.” Sub-inspector Cameron said accused had called at his wife’s place on Saturday afternoon and asked to see his child. He was told to go away, and he followed his wife and her sister into the city. On the tram he made insulting remarks to his wife, and then followed her to _ the police station, where, as the police feared a breach of the peace, Kennedy was taken into custody. i Rose Kennedy gave evidence in support of Mr Cameron’s statements. As a result of accused’s remarks in the car she was forced to alight at Moray place, and Kennedy followed her and continued to use insulting remarks on the way to the police station. She was afraid of Kennedy. Complainant’s sister gave corroborative evidence. Cross-examined by Kennedy she admitted using an approbious terra about his other two children, Kennedy said he had. been provoked by his sister-in-law. The Magistrate said he had definitely warned Kennedy to keep away from his wife, and accused, on his last appearance in court, had given an assurance to honourably carry out his obligations. He was prepared to give Kennedy another opportunity, if satisfactory arrangements could be made for him to leave Dunedin. It was quite clear that Kennedy could not keep away from his wife when he lived in the same district. If the arrangements could not be made he would be sentenced to imprisonment. Accused would be remanded in custody till Friday. MISSING COPPER. Three charges of stealing copper cable, valued nt £72, tbe property of the City Corporation, were preferred against William Townsbend Harvey, who pleaded guilty. Angus William

Cameron Macdon, .u was charged with the theft of cable valued at £33. Harvey was remanded till Friday, bail being allowed as before. In applying for a similar remand, which was granted, on 'the charge against Macdonald, Detective-sergeant Nuttall said thirty-six hundredweight of copper had been recovered. Other charges would be preferred against Macdonald. INFERIOR MILK. For selling milk below standard Adam Wilkinson, who pleaded not guilty, was convicted and fined £2 and costs (22s 8d). The Magistrate said, unfortunately, a suggestion had been made that the milk had been interfered with by someone, yet Ills own statements did not give a shadow of substantiation. MAINTENANCE. On a charge of default of maintenance payments, William Clark'was sentenced to fourteen days’ imprisonment, the warrant to bo suspended provided he pays 10s weekly. An application by Alfred Edward Pauley for the variation .of a maintenance order in respect to a child in a State institution was refused. The arrears were remitted. An order for maintenance at the rate of 12 6d was maoe against Walter Neilson, who was also ordered to pay £5 as past maintenance SERIOUS CHARGES. Annie May Campbell appeared on two charges that on or about January 15, 1931, she attempted to procure her own miscarriage by unlawfully administering to herself certain things at Green Island. Detective-sergeant Nuttall prosecuted. , _ Detective Jenvey said he had interviewed the accused at Brighton, when she admitted she had taken certain things supplied by Larkins and Collins. She produced a bottle, which was sealed in her presence and- later handed to the Government analyst. Accused made a statement.

To counsel: She was not warned that anything she might say might be used in evidence against her. She said that she was not proceeding against the father of the child. ■ He had not warned her, as he was making inquiries only. To Mr Nuttall: The decision to prosecute was made by his superior officer two months after the inquiry, Lionel H. James, Government analyst, also gave evidence. The Magistrate held that a prima facie case had been established. It would be improper for him to pass any opinion on the, question of evidence. Accused pleaded not guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial, bail being allowed in her own recognisance of Robert Larkins was charged that on or about January 15, 1931, at Port Chalmers, he did attempt to unlawfully supply to Campbell' a, certain thing knowing that the same was intended to bo unlawfully used or employed with the intent to procure the miscarriage of Campbell. Detective Jenvey said that when interviewed on October 21 Larkins strenuously denied' having given the girl any capsules. Later he made a statement that in January, 1931, the girl had informed him of her condition and asked him to obtain the capsules. He purchased tho first tin at the U.F.S. Dispensary at Port Chalmers for 11s fid, the capsules being handed over by the assistant without any comment. He had obtained the capsules out of sympathy for the girl, who had not accused him of being responsible for her condition. He had not asked Collins to supply anything to the girl. After.the statements had been obtained Larkins said: “ I suppose if a man is to be charged with this ho may as well plead guilty.” To counsel: He had not warned Larkins before accused denied the offence. Accused was warned before he made the statement. ■

Detective Taylor,'who was present when Larkins was interviewed at the Port Chalmers police station, also gave evidence in corroboration. To counsel: He did not lead Larkins to believe no prosecution would follow. Accused was told there would probably be a case; perhaps that was after accused had made his statement. Counsel submitted that the case was not one on which a jury would convict. There was no confirmation of accused’s own statement and an admission by Larkins that he had obtained the capsules from a chemist’s assistant named Campbell had been proved wrong, as Detective-sergeant Nuttall had himself admitted.

The Magistrate said that the information as it stood would have to be dismissed. The accused either supplied or did not supply a certain thing. ' Legal argument followed, and the case was adjourned to allow the prosecution to confer with the defence on the question of amendment of the charge. A similar charge against another man and a charge of unlawfully supplying a certain preparation against a chemist’s assistant were set down for hearing this afternoon.