CHCH. COURTS

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 December 1925, Page 3

CHCH. COURTS

FATHER AND SON. (Special to “Star.' 1 ] CHRISTCHURCH, December 2. Considering that he was only enter / ing a house for the purpose of making ■ things unpleasant, and unable to oh ■ tain a reason for the visit, a sor forcibly ejected his father from home on October 2. , The father had noi lived at tire house for nine months, but was in the habit of visiting his wife. To-day, the son appeared in the Magistrate’s Court before Messrs J. H. Seage and F. H. Christian, J’s P.. charged' with assaulting the father. Mr. H. H. Hanna appeared for complainant and A. L. Haslam for the defendant. Complainant stated that about 7 z p.m. on October 2 he went down to see what work had been done in improving the place. He was not living at home, and when he went to enter the house by the back door, his son told him to get out- Complainant went to brush past him, and defendant seized him by the arm, called to a sister to open the door, and then ran complainant on to the street. He hurt complainant’s arm. The complainant did not wish to lay a charge against the boy, but did it so that the boy would learn some sense. Questioned by the Bench, complani- . ant said that he had been living apart ! from his wife for nine months. He generally went round to see his wife once a week, to try to get his wife to come to terms with him. The visits were always friendly, and he would go back to his wife if she would come to terms. To Mr. Haslam complainant said that he did not threaten to “get the boy six months.” Mr. Haslam: What did you say?—l said “you dirty dog, you will suffer for this.” What did you mean by saying that lie would suffer for it? —I will cut him out of my will. That’s all you meant?—Yes. Defendant said that his father attempted to enter the house, and defendant asked him what he wantedComplainant got into a violent temper, and shaped up to him. When his father attempted to strike him, he seized! his father by the arm and ran him outside. Complainant had been living apart from his wife, and when he went to the house always made himself objectionable. He used foul language to stir up trouble. Defendant used no more force Allan necessary. To the Bench, defendant said he thought that he was quite justified in putting his father out of the place. A sister of the defendant corroborated defendant’s evidence, and stated that complainant’s presence in the house caused unhappiness. The Bench thought that complainant had justification in going to the house, and it was not unreasonable that he should enter the house. The Bench thought that the son dealt harshly towards the father. While defendant must be convicted, it was not a case for a heavy penalty. Defendant would be fined 20/- with costs. Mr. Haslam asked that the name of the defendant be suppressed, and the Bench holding that the case was not one which had been brought as a warning to others, and that perhaps it was as much the fault of the father as of the son. made an order for sup- : pression.

MORE FORTUNE-TELLING. Mrs. Laird, 14 Lawson Street, Sydenham, appeared to-day on two charges ol undertaking to tell fortunes on September 25. She was represented by Mr. A. Cuthbert. Miss K. McCormack, police officer, said that she visited defendant’s place in company with Mrs. Rodgers, another police officer. Both had their fortunes told. Witness cut the cards, then was told that she would be very successful. She would get a document to> sign, but she should be very careful. She should also be very careful about her eyes. She would be very much happier within two years. Then Airs. Laird gave witness a crystal to Hold with both hands. Witness learned that an elderly man would ask her to marry him. She was to accept the proposal. A doctor would be very interested in her. She mgiht have to go to Melbourne about her eyes. Witness did not take a great deal of notice of what was said to .Mrs. Rodgers, but heard Mrs. Laird tell her that she would be good at nursing, or in managing a hospital. One of her brothers would have an accident, and probably would die. She would be sent for in a hurry. Her expenses would be forwarded. The Bench: Was there any charge -made for this valuable information? — Yes, we paid 2/6 each. To Mr. Cuthbert, witness said that there was no sign of- notice outside the house. Defendant was not reluctant to give a reading. Defendant may have been discussing the characters of witness and Mrs. Rodgers most of the time. Mrs. Rodgers, who is ill, was not present to give evidence. Mr. Cuthbert pleaded guilty to each charge and asked for lenient treatment. Accused was a genuine believer that she had powers to divine the future from the cards and crystals. The financial circumstances of her household made her more to be, pitied than blamed for breaking the law. There were nine children between 14g years of age and 2 years. The eldest boy obtained work just last week. Before that, the woman had supported nine children. Her husband was very delicate and had not been able to work for 22 weeks. The Bench: Will this lady undertake not to impose upon the public again? It is imposition no matter what she may believe. Mr. Cuthbert: I think she will undertake that. I have explained to her what she did not know before, the true position. Defendant was convicted and ordered to pay costs, then the Bench ventured into the future in approved prophetic style:—“She had better be careful in the future,” warned the Bench solemnly.