POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 21725, 21 May 1934, Page 1

POLICE COURT

MONDAY, MAY 21. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) THREE MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT. Alexander Fraser was charged with a breach of his probation order in that on May 5 he failed to be of good behaviour. He appeared for sentence on a charge of stealing £lO 10s in money and a cheque for £3 10s, the property of David-Henderson, the date of the information being December 31. His Worship, having perused the report of the probation officer, remarked that probation seemed to be utterly useless as applied to a man of accused’s character. The accused had made no attempt to comply with the conditions, the report dsecribing him as a drunken waster. On the original charge the accused was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, and on the later information he was convicted and discharged. MAINTENANCE. John Patrick Burke was charged with disobedience of a niaintenance order, the arrears of which amounted to £37 8s 9d.—He was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended if he pays £3 forthwith and thereafter £1 10s per week until the arrears are cleared off. . . Further evidence was heard in the case in which Adam Gibson Scott (Mr F. C. Dawson) was proceeded against by his wife (Mr G. T. Baylee), who sought separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders on the grounds that Scott was an habitual inebriate, was guilty of persistent cruelty, and failed to provide adequate maintenance. Another witness was to be taken this afternoon. Maurice James Hurnng was proceeded against by Ins wife (Mr D. Stevens) in a complaint for separation, maintenance, and guardianship _ orders on the grounds of failure to niamtani. Mi- Stevens said that the court had not heard such a case of callous indifference on the part of a husband in years. It was incredible that any mail could have acted ’so inhuman]v to liis family. Mrs Hurnng,; who had five children, was now living m a tent at Hindoo. Mrs Hurring said that she was married in 1926, and lived at various places with her husband, who was a railway surfaceman. They were in the habit of opening each other’s letters, and when they were at Allanton Mrs Hurring found one from a single woman telling her husband, who was responsible, that she was in a certain condition. Witness wrote to this woman and invited her to come and talk the matter over. As a result, Mrs Hurring was broken-hearted and lelt her husband. She had one child then, and left it with her mother at Waitaluina. Shortly after she received a telegram from her husband saying‘that the child was very ill. She hurried to her mother’s, and found that it was nothing serious at all. Her mother then foi’cecl her to make it up with her husband. The latter later received an account from Red Roofs in respect to the illegitiriiate child, and said that if she did not take the child into the home he would have to go to gaol. This she agreed to do. Some time later one of her children became desperately ill, but nothing was seen or heard of Hurring. The child died, and he then appeared, in his working clothes, for the funeral. Mrs Hurnng then described how they lived at various centres, and were ejected from houses for non-payment of rent. Finally tney were at Benhar. ami hero they were also ordered from a house.

The order was to take effect on a Mon. day, and on the Sunday evening Mrs Hurring asked to be allowed to stay on, but the agent could not accede to this as other tenants were coming in in the morning. Her husband had disappeared at this stage.' Mrs Hurring was then compelled to go to a sister at Hindon. At Hindon she had to live in a ten by twelve tent. Two of her children slept with her, and all had their meals in the tent. This was in October of last year, and Mrs Hurling had not seen her husband until this morning. Since Christmas she had received £3 12s 6d from him. The defendant was conducting hi« own cross-examination at the luncheon adjournment.