TO-DAY'S COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXII, Issue LXII, 29 January 1912, Page 7

TO-DAY'S COURT.

(Before Mr Kenrick, .S.M.)

SERIOUS CHARGES

Albert George Dixon,; for whom Mr G. Ryan appeared, pleaded guilty to a series of charges of having- obtained between Jamfary 20 and 22 goods and money by.false pretences by means of valueless cheques. The particulars are as follows: From Purser Brothers, one tin of tobacco, value Is, pipe Is 6d, and £3 17s 6d in money; frpni the New, Zealand Loan arid Mercantile Agency Co., £3 2s 6d mcmey: from Hallenstein Brothers, 1 pair boots, value" £1. a;nd £3 in money; from R. W.' Sargent, one metal watch, value £1 10s, and £2 10s in 1 money. Accused also pleaded guilty to the theft of a bicycle, valued at £6, the property of J. B. Johnstone.

/Accused elected to be dealt with, summarily, i ■ . ,

Counsel said the character of the accused up to the present had been good. Tilt case would be a lesson to accused.

Sergeant Griffith said the accused had returned the articles obtained from the tradespeople, and when he was arrested he had in his possession £9 Is.

The Magistrate said the charges were pretty serious, and he could not allow accused out on probation. On the charges relating to the cheques accused would be sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labor, and on the charge of stealing the bicycle to three months' imprisonment, with hard labor, the sentences to be concurrent.

THE LICENSING LAW

' Henry O'Hara, who did not appear, was charged with having procuredjiquor during the currency of a prohibition order. Mr Ryan represented defendant.

Constable Flanagan deposed to having seen defendant under the influence of liquor during the currency of a prohibition order. The order was still in force.

As thiswas the third offence, a fine of 60s, with costs 7s, was imposed; in default, 14 days' imprisonment. Defendant- was allowed 14 days in which to pay the fine.

John Adams was charged on two informations with having committed' a breach of a prohibition order.

Mr ODea, for defendant, said Adams was unable to appear, and as defendant desired to make a. personal statement to his Worship, he would ask that the case be adjourned for one week. .-

This was granted. Denis Fahey was then charged with having procured liquor for one John Adams.

Defendant said he would admit having supplied the liquor, but be did not know that Adams was prohibited.

■ Constable Flanagan gave evidence of having seen defendant in company with prohibited persons, -including Adams. John Hook, licensee of the Commercial Hotel, deposed to having seen defendant in conversation with Adams, and that Hie saw something pass, between them, but he could not say whether-it was money. Defendant' subsequently visited a couple of hotels, and afterwards in company with Adam? adjourned toi the rear of the sample-rooms.

Replying to a question, defendant said Chat Adams told him h& was not- a prohibited person.

The Magistrate said it would be better to adjourn the case to hear what Adams ■had to say, for it might be that defendant was not aware that Adams was prohibited.

The case was accordingly adjourned until next Monday.

Bertie James Towers pleaded guilty to having procured liquor while he was yet a subject of a prohibition order. The Magistrate pointed out to defendant that he had several times been fined for breaches of orders, and he would really have to consider the advisableness of sending him to a home for defendant's own good. Defendant asked to be given one more chance, and said he would get away into the country. The Magistrate said he would be well advised if he did so. Defendant was fined 60s, with costs 7s, in default 14 days' imprisonment. He was allowed a month in which to pay the fine, on con ration that he informed the police where he was, as he had not paid for a previous offence. 'A CHARGE DISMISSED. David Nelson, for whom Mr ODea appeared, pleaded not guilty to a charge of being an idle and disorderly person. The evidence showed that defendant had, previous to Christmas, been working for six months, and that for a week after he was not doing anything except drinking. It also was elicited" that deI fendant had paid all his debts with the j money he had received for working. The Magistrate said at Christmas-time men usually came in from the country for the holidays and did not do anything for a while. It could not be suggested that a man who came into town with the sum of £90, the proceeds of a contract, paid his debs, and did nothing for a week, came within the definition of an idle and disorderly person. The police had said that defendant was seen knocking about in undesirable company, and he would advise him to get back to the country. The defendant replied that he would go into the country immediately. The case was dismissed.