POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 23526, 15 March 1940, Page 6

POLICE COURT

FRIDAY, MARCH 15,

(Before Mr H, W. Bundle, S.M.)'

THEFTS FROM MILK BILLIES,

A young man, aged 19, the publication of whose name was prohibited, was before the court for sentence on six charges of theft of money from milk billies, to which charges he had pleaded guilty. Three further charges were preferred, and to these also accused pleaded guilty, the sum involved being 16s 81 d in all.—The Magistrate said that the probation officer’s report showed that the youth, mentally, was not strong. Had it been otherwise and the circumstances different a term of imprisonment would have been inflicted, but, all things considered, the accused would he convicted on the charge of theft of 4s 3d and admitted to probation for a term of two years, restitution of the full amount (16s B]d) to bo made. The other eight charges were dismissed. LICENSING ACT BREACHES. The Magistrate delivered judgment in the matter of charges against Alexander Donoghue (supplying liquor after hours) and Patrick Treacy (selling liquor after hours) in respect of breaches of the Licensing Act, committed at the New Club. Hotel on December 28 lash A rehearing of these charges had been granted by the magistrate, who now stated that he was not impressed by the manner in which the new witness had given his evidence, and that the evidence had not altered the opinion formed by him at the first hearing.. Both defendants would be convicted.—ln answer to the magistrate, Senior-sef-geant Claasen said that the hotel, which was difficult to control on account of its locality, was being fairly well conducted, hut both the defendants had been previously convicted on similar charges.—-The defendant Donoghue was fined £3, with 19s 8d expenses and 10s costs, and the defendant Treacy £5, with 10s costs.—At the request of counsel (Mr A. G. Neill) the fine in Treacy’s case was increased to £5 Is to enable an appeal to be considered. Judgment was also given in the matter of John Sinclair Clark, barman (supplying liquor after hours) and Robert Kirkaldie Aitcheson, licensee of the Shamrock Hotel - (selling liquor after hours; keeping his premises open after hours, and exposing liquor for sale after hours). After traversing the evidence which had been given, the Magistrate entered a conviction in each case and fined Clark £3, with expenses (255) and costs (10s), and Aitcheson £5, with costs (10s) on the charge of selling, the other charges against, this defendant being withdrawn. On the application of council (Mr I. Stevenson) the fine in the case of Aitcheson was increased to £5 Is to enable an appeal to be made. MOTORING OFFENCES. On charges of failing to produce warrants of fitness for their respective motor vehicles, Joseph William Ashmore was fined 5s gtd costs, Cyril Evans, Thomas Aitken, and William James M'Culloch each 10s and, costs, and Gordon Edward Munro was convicted and discharged. , Austin George Connor, for failing to keep to the left of the roadway, was fined 15s and costs.

Mergyn Gaiger, as a rider of a motor cycle not fitted with a silencer, was fined 20s and costs, and for not having a warrant of fitness, was cpnvicted and. ordered to come up for sentence if called upon. For exceeding the speed limit of SO miles an hour, Eileen Shiel ■ was fined 20s and costs.

Pleading guilty to a charge of failing to notify change of ownership of a motor car, Cossens and Black Ltd. were fined 10s and costs. ASSAULT ALLEGED.

Colin George M'Orone, for whom Mr R. A. King appeared, was charged with having assaulted William Stewart on February 1, and also with having assaulted Stewart and causing him bodily harm.

Dr Caddie gave evidence as to the condition of Stewart when admitted to the Hospital, stating that the injuries disclosed were consistent with a man falling and his head striking a hard substance. To Mr King: The injuries were more consistent with the man having fallen than with his having received a punch. Dr Geoffrey Barnett, who had been called to examine Stewart at a residence in South Dunedin, said he had treater the complainant, and_ later advised his removal to the Hospital. To Mr King: It would have been possible, but unlikely, for a blow on the nose, to cause the injury. William Stewart, employed in home service at the Central Battery, said that on February 1 he had a day off and was in uniform. About 6 p.m. he was walking along Carey Avenue towards his home, and saw 'the accused following him. The accused passed and then asked complainant to strike him, and called him a foul name. Close to witness’s home accused attacked him with his fists, holding him by the arm. Witness was knocked to the footpath and became unconscious and was taken to the Hospital. To Mr King: There had been trouble between witness and the accused over a matter connected with the former’s daughter. Witness had never given accused any provocation. On the evening in question witness had been in an hotel and had a few drinks; he was quite sober, however. He would not deny having called accused a mongrel. (Case proceeding.)