Kaitaia Court

Northland Age, Volume XVIII, Issue 79, 15 July 1949, Page 1

Kaitaia Court

At the monthly sitting of the Kaitaia Court held on Wednesday, many civil cases were brought before Mr. W. Carrol Harley S.M. for his judgment. Breaking and Entering Oneroa Pukeroa, a labourer aged 21, pleaded guilty to three charges of j breaking and entering- and theft at Herekino. These charges were indictable, but the accused elected to be dealt with summarily by the Court sitting. Constable G. F. Molloy stated that I he had interviewed accused who had ! frankly admitted entering the dwell- ! ing of Mrs. E. A. Berghan on the 11th June and steailng the sum of 2/6, | the caravan of Mx-s. Batty on the 24th May and stealing the sum of £8 from her handbag, and on the 17th June, he had entered the shop of E. May by bi-eaking a wii-e screen door, and had there stolen £4. Constable Molloy went on to say that the £8 had been recovered and £3/2/2 of the other money. It was repoi-ted by the police that the accused had not been before any Court previously, but that he was reluctant to work. Mr. Harley admitted Pukeroa to probation for a period of 12 months. Evasion of Fare Hei-eana McLeod, a married woman, was chaiged that she tried to evade payment of the fai-e for a child of six when travelling in a railway train. Sgt. H. J. Harrington prosecuting, said that the information was laid by the Railway Department, and that a ticket inspector on making an inspection, saw defendant in a railway carriage with a child lying on a seat covered by a rug. When the inspector asked the age of the child, defendant had told him that it was four years. He had become suspicious and on pulling back the rug- and asking the child its age, the child had told him six, and that she went to school. Challenged, the defendant had paid

the fare, but as the Railway Department viewed this type of offence seriously, the piesent charge had been made. “What have you to say about this?” asked Mr. Harley of defendant. “It was my bi'other’s child, and I was only guessing,” came the reply. ' “Go on with you,” said Mr. Harley. “You will be convicted and ordered , to pay the costs amounting to £l. It i j serves you l-ight.” • j , Archibald v. Lee An application was sought by D. Archibald (Mr. G. Nicholls) for possession of a dwelling fi-om F. Lee (Mr. R. H. Kelly), and for the recovery of rent arrears amounting to | £99/4/8. Mr. Nicholls stated that the proj perty had been let at £2 weekly, and later this had been l-educed to a basic rent of £l/12/6 until 31st August, 1948, when a Fair Rents ruling had come into operation at £l/5/-. Mr. R. H. Kelly for the defendant, stated that Lee had considered the rent to be exorbitant, and had been in touch with the Labour Department expecting that they would take up the matter. The Department had dilly-dallied for so long that these arrears had accumulated, and then defendant had been told that the Department could do nothing. It was then that he had consulted his legal advisers. Defendant had paid the £l/5/- j rental monthly, Mr. Kelly continued, Mr. Harley said that where rent was in arrears, he had no option but tc make an order for possession, but in this case he would suspend the order, providing that the current rent of £l/5/- was paid regularly, with 7/6 weekly paid off the arrears. Prohibition Order In the case in which Mrs. Lee (Mr. G. A. Nicholls) made application for a prohibition ox-der against her hus- j band, F. Lee (Mr. R. H. Kelly) after j hearing evidence in support of her \ application, Mr. Hai-ley submitted j that he thought no good purpose j could be served by such an oi-der, and refused the application.