ELTHAM.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 25 June 1924, Page 12

ELTHAM.

JIACISTIiATK'S COUET. (Before Mr A. M. Movvlem, S.M.) Four Mtiitun boys, convicted oi' theft last court titty, were brought up for sentence. His Worship said the two younger hoys would lie admitted to probation for six months, not to be allowed out at night. The two elder hoys had proved themselves very culpable. He explained to them that the public must be protected. It was not a question ot punishment. He had the power to sena them to gaol, but lie liau to consider the best course to adopt. He pointed out to the boys that they had systematically broken into; and committed theft, and then had hidden the stolen goods. They would be askep to come up for sentence if called upon within two years. Both would be placed out on probation, and would have to completely submit themselves to the authority of their temporary guardian. He regretted that he would have to take the boys away from their mothers, but he could not see any other course 10 adopt. The boys must be kept away from another—this was a condition upon which he would insist. The tools stolen, his Worship added, would be returned to the owners. The tools for which no owners could he found, would be kept till the police found owners for them. The two elder boys were ordered to go under their guardians’ authority immediately, his Worship intimating that he did not want the boys hanging round the town together. iV. Neilson was charged with a breach of the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act, 1909. Mr ]>. Clement appeared for defendant. Sergeant Henry said the defendant conducted a. maternity home in Ifiltham, and it had come to the knowledge of the authorities that she had allowed two patients in her home at the same time while only one should have been taken. Mrs ' Neilson had been warned. She bore an excellent character. Mr Clement said that it w*as a case of maternity patients coming along ■before their time. His client had, been nursing for 21 years, and had never lost a patient or a baby. Mrs Neilson was now G 8 years of age, and was shortly leaving to keep a maternity home. Hr. Stringer said he had a. case in the maternity home in question. He knew’ of Mrs Neilson as a nurse of wide experience and great ability. He had advised his patient to go into Mrs Neil son’s home. His Worship said a home to take one patient need not be licensed. The facts were very clear. From the evidence of Dr. Stringer it was evident that his patient needed special attention. The other patient came to the home prematurely* Defendant would be fined £1 and costs 7s. Daniel Malone was charged on .the information of the Kaponga ' Town Board with driving a motor at excessive speed. Alter evidence at considerable length had been heard, hi,s Worship said defendant was charged with breaking two separate by-lays. There was no question that defendant had. committed such breaches. It had been ruled by Lord Russell that a by-law must be attached in its true position, and that the exercise of such by-laws must be watched jealously. But’he had further stated that when it came to the by-law itself then the course of justice must be slow r in declaring such by-law invalid. He (his Worship) had been asked to rule as to whether the by-laws were.partial and unequal. He, had considered the whole of the evidence. The local authority should know better what is necessary for their district than any court coutd possibly do. It was true the by-law was not as clear as it might "be. He would have to convict the defendant, who had admitted that he had driven at a greater speed than allowed in both eases. A fine of 10s would be inflicted, with court costs 7s, and witnesses’ expenses Bs. Judgment was given for the plaintiff, with, costs, in the following undefended civil cases: J. H. Brooking v. C. J. Wiley. £8: P. W. Allen v. M. Jeffries, £l. 12s. —Argus.