MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 1510, 9 March 1920, Page 7

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

A LENGTHY JLTST

Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., presided at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when the following cases were dealt with: —

15Y-LAW CASES

J. C. Crowe was fined £1 and costs / for leaving his car standing- with.it headlights burning. A. Davis, who rove a horse and cart through the wn and failed to have the vehicle uminated. was lined 10/ and 2/ >sts. W. J. Farlane had to pay £1 •id costs l»/ and 10/ and costs 7/, re!iactively, on charges of failing to gister change of ownership of a lotor cycle and with failing to have front number attached to the cycle. . Bryant pleaded not guilty to riding motor cycle in a manner dangerous

■ the public. After hearing evidence ,e information was dismissed. A. E. insel and W. Frew were lined 10/ id £1 respectively with costs for fail-

■; to have their conveyances illumined. E. J. Passey, whose car ob•ucted the cycle track, was fined £1 id costs 7/. For using a motor car ithout its being registered I). Weston i.d to pay £1 and costs 7/. E. A. arke was charged under the New •aland Railways by-laws, with havg left a train whilst it was in mo>n. He was fined £1 and costs 9/. MAINTENANCE < "ASES.

C. A. Phillips was ordered to pay rears and keep up regular payment maintenance monies in respect to -■. three children. Failing this he is to be imprisoned for one month. CHARGES AGAINST FEMALE.

Mary Ann Palmer pleaded guilty to charge of procuring liquor during

he currency of a prohibition order, iid also with having used indecent .nguage. The police explained that his was the second occasion on which ■ oused had appeared in respect to r language. Mr Ongley, who apared for accused, drew attention to '. unfortunate circumstances of the e and said that accused could not ■ •itrol herself. Her husband now intnded to take her into the country. l. eused was convicted and fined £1 id costs 7/ on each of the charges. A BR UTAH ACT. John Farmer, a middle-aged man, eaded guilty to having cruelly 111- : eated an animal, namely, a domestic f. by cutting* its tail off. Sergt. Fitzpatrick, in outlining the ts of the case, said that on Satur.iy night accused went down Main ' reet and took hold of a cat belonglg to a business person in that street. i the presence of a number of peole, and before the latter could realise is intentions, accused had taken out is pocket knife and cut the cat's tail ff. The whole affair could be put iwn to the drink, and Sergt. Fitzatrjck asked that a prohibition order • made against accused. The latter

isented that this should be done

In consideration of the fact that he .vould consent to an order, accused vas convicted and fined only £1 and osts, the prohibition order to be isied forthwith. FINED FOR ASSAULT. .

Samuel Raw (of Willowbank Pri- ! vate Hotel), for whom Mr Cooper j appeared, was charged with having j assaulted Olga Graham, who was rei presented by Mr Oakley. ! In stating the case for complainant

Mr Oakley said that on March 4th

i last Mrs Graham, who was cook at i Willowbank, was going about her duties and preparing the midday j meal. She had occasion to put a cer-

i tain pot on the hottest part of the i range, but when her back was turn- ! Ed, defendant "shifted it and put a tin > of fowl-food in its place. When in- ' formant discovered this she shifted it | and defendant hit her over the arm

with a dipper which was full of water. < Informant suffered severely and her ; arm was badly bruised and discolouri ed. She reported the matter to the i Inspector of Factories and the police. ! Rater, when she and the Inspector of i Factories, interviewed Mr and Mrs J Raw, the defendant admitted having i lost his temper. j Complainant and Mr Torbit (the ' inspector) gave evidence on these

! lines. | The defence was a denial of the asi sault and defendant said it was merej ly an accident brought about by comj plainant herself. His Worship con-

• sidered there was sufficient evidence • of the assault and convicted and fined ' Law £2, with costs amounting to 9/. [ Solicitor's fees were allowed com- ] plainant, who is also to get half of j the fine.

DAMAGING ROSE RUSH.

LOCAL PUBLICAN FINED

Thomas Childs (Mr Innes) was charged, under the Borough By-laws, with having wilfully damaged a rose bush in the Square gardens. Mr F. H. Cooke appeared for the Council. Annie Amelia Aston, the informant, said she was driving along in hetf trap when she saw Childs in an attitude which made her think that he was taking a knife out of his pocket. She saw him fumbling with something —probably the knife. Immediately after she noticed he had a rose in his hand and she was certain he did not have this when she first saw him. Witness had said to defendant: "I saw you pick that rose, Mr Childs!" Defendant replied: "I have not got a 'tenner' on me so you had better call round in the morning." Witness said she did not want the "tenner."

Cross-examined by Mr Innes witness said she had never heard of a reward until after she had informed on Mr Childs. Mr Innes: You would take it if it were offered? Witness: I would take it. Witness went on to say that she was not after the money but wanted to see justice done. One man got lined, so why should others get off. She did not remember who first mentioned the matter of reward when she called at the Council oflice. She had called to the hotel next morning and had asked defendant how about the rose he took. Defendant had denied taking the rose. It was then that she went and put the complaint in writing. "I am sorry I have had to come to Court myself," said witness. Mr Innes: You are more sorry that you did not get the £lO.

Witness: That is not so. .1 would not tell a lie for £lO. Hazel Just, who was with Mrs Aston when Childs was seen in the garden, gave corroborative evidence. Mr innes said the defence was an absolute denial. There was not a particle o! evidence in support of the charge laid in the information to show that the rose bush had been damaged. There was also no evidence to show that plucking the rose damage to the tree necessarily followed. The Magistrate said he would not uphold Mr Innes' suggestion and though! that if anything was cut from the tree it was damaged to a certain extent.

The defendant, who is licensee of the Commercial Hotel, denied having taken a rose at any time from the garden:--. lie was in the gardens on the day in question and he heard Mrs Aston call out, but he never spoke one word to her. She came round to the hotel next morning and asked him about tiie rose, lie denied to her that he had taken it. Defendant told the Court he had been smelling a rose in the Square that night. His Worship thought there was sufficcnt evidence to enter a conviction

and considered that the story of the informant and other witnesses was hardly one that would be made up. "Mr Childs will be treated the same as the other gentleman who picked roses." He will be fined £5. The costs amounted to 17/. ALLEGED THEITT FROM PERSON. A.CCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. Two middle-aged men named Charles Anderson and Frederick Satherly appeared on remand and were jointly charged with having on February 23, at Palmerston North, committed the theft of £lO in money from the person of Robert Alexander McKay. Anderson was further charged with being a rogue and vagabond, having been previously convicted as an idle and disorderly person and having insufficient visible means of support. Satherley was charged with being an idle and disorderly person in that he had insufficient lawful means of support. Mr H. R. Cooper appeared for both the accused men. Alexander McKay gave lengthy evidence as to having seen the accused in the Masonic Hotel. Witness had been reclining on a sofa and accused Anderson made attempts to get witness to have a drink, but the latter declined. Sometime later witness felt a hand taking something from his pocket. Witness had £2O on his person at the time. Witness grabbed and caught the man Satherly and they struggled into the backyard. Witness demanded, in the presence of the publican and others, that Satherley turn out his pockets, but the latter only produced a little over £l. Satherley was made to g'o back to the sitting room, as witness thought he might have thrown the money down. Satherley reached the room first and picked up something from the floor, and, rushing out, passed it over to Anderson, who was later caught by witness. Two £5 notes were missing from witness' pocket. Anderson had made such a row that witness let him go and reported to the police. Kate Persson, booking clerk, Masonic Hotel, deposed having seen McKay and Satherley quarrelling and when witness enquired what the trouble was McKay said that Satherley had taken some money from his pocket. The two of them went into the commercial room and shortly after Satherley came out and passed "something" to Anderson, saying "take this, take this." Anderson did and rushed out of the door. Charles Fled fern, the licensee of the Masonic Hotel, gave evidence of a mainly corroborative nature. Formal evidence was given by the police. Accused reserved their defence and were committed for trial at the next session of the Supreme Court at Palmerston North. The charges of vagrancy against the two accused were withdrawn by the police. j