INTERPRETATION SOUGHT

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 12 September 1927, Page 5

INTERPRETATION SOUGHT

MEANING OF “VAGABOND.” A VOLUBLE DEFENDANT. “I’d like to know the meaning of the- word ‘vagabond’ before 1 plead, your Worship.’ I’m not broke. Lye still got a litfc.e cash left,” said David Morrow Orozier, alias Burke, in the Hawera Police Court to-day when charged before Messrs. Ri. W. J. McNeill and J. S. Murray, J’s.P., with being a rogue and a vagabond, having previously been convicted in Palmerston North of being an idle and disorderly person. The' defendant proceeded to state that he had been working until the middl-g' of last week, giving a list of the' various places in which he had recently worked for odd days, this including New Plymouth, Normanby and Manaia. Sergeant J. Henry, who conducted the case, stated that the defendant' had been found at 11.30 o’clock on Saturday night by don,stable Lemm to be sleeping in ai shed at the back of a. shop occupied by Mr. F. Cook. He bad no' money when arrested and gave his name as David. Burke. He had been spoken to on Saturday morning and had stated that llie had spent Friday night at the house of a> friend 'at Normanby, but declined to* give the name of the friend. The slied in which he had been found had been found had been slept in by someone the previous might and it was suspected that this was where the defendant had spent Friday night. When spoken to in the cell yesterday morning lie had given his name as “White.’ “Apparently,” said Sergeant Henry, “lie has some reason for giving these fictitious names.” “Not at laill,” hastily interposed the defendant. “I take it that I was in a drunken state. I had been drinking for several days, and on account ol war injuries I should not touch it.” He then proceeded to- enlarge upon his services at the front. When asked to plead he said, “Not guilty to being a vagabond, but guilty to being illegally upon the. premises.” Sergeant Henry produced a list ol previous convictions. The Bench: “This list shows tlia.t you have had ten previous convictions and that you have spent altogether about six months in gaol.” This Was challenged by the defenuant who declared that :in some instances he had had the option of a fine. . . The Bench expressed the opinion that the previous convictions had not done the defendant a great deal ol good. He was .sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour.