POLICE COURT NEWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17651, 11 December 1920, Page 11

POLICE COURT NEWS.

DISTURBANCE AT DEVONPORT TWO AGGRESSORS FINED. As the result of a fight thai took place on the Marine Parade, Devonport, late at night on November 5, William J. O'Shaughnessy (Mr. Inder), Konald Ross (Mr. Chalmers), and James Bowman (Mr. Selwyn Mays), appeared before Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday, to answer a charge of disturbing the peace. It was stated that Bowman was at home on the night in question, when be heard the other two accused breaking down a wall in his garden. As his garden had suffered considerably from vandals, he ran out and followed the men, who were under the influence of liquor. An argument ensued, followed by a bout of fisticuffs. O'Shaughnessy and Ross were fined 40s and costs, the charge against Bowman being dismissed after he had been ordered to pay 5s 8d costs. r J TROUBLE ON THE WHARF. Charges of having left a motor-car unattended on the Central Wharf and with having used abusive language to a Harbour Board official, were preferred against a taxi-driver, Harry Neil Wisker (Mr. Durham), on the information of Thomas MacNamara (Mr. A. Moody), an employee of the Harbour Board. The informant stated that defendant's car was left standing unattended from 5.30 until 6.35 o clock. When told to remove the car, accused used bad language, and offered to fight informant. A witness was called in support of these statements. Mr. Moody, for the defence, alleged that MacNamara became officious, and tried to make defendant drop some luggage he was carrying. It was admitted that there had been an argument and a suggestion of fighting, but the use of abusive language was denied. A witness was also called for the defence. The magistrate imposed a fine of 10s on the first charge, and 40s on the i second, with costs in both cases. THEFTS BY YOUNG WOMEN. A young married woman, who had stolen '. three pairs of ladies' shoes from a ware- ; house in the city, and her companion, who ! had been present on the occasion and had received one of the pairs herself, both pleaded guilty to the charges made against them. Chief-Detective McMahon said the offence might have been due to poor cir- ' cumstances, as the first woman had an aged father whom she was nursing, and the latter, who had two children, had an incapacitated husband. Both accused -were convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon, and were placed under the supervision of the probation officer under the terms of the new Act. CRUELTY TO A HORSE. « A Hindu named Chikana, who paid a boy 5s to take a lame horse to the Onehunga Zoo to be destroyed, pleaded guilty to a charge of ill-treating the animal. An inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals had previously taken notice of the horse's condition and, with a constable, had warned the owner that the animal was not to be moved. The Hindu pleaded that he had mistaken the constable's words, "It must not be walked," for "It must not be

worked." He was fined 40s, with 21s costs. POSSESSION REFUSED.

COMMENTS BY THE MAGISTRATE.

Decision in a tenement case, in •which an interesting point regarding the position of tenants who did not obey notice to vacate the premises had been raised by counsel for plaintiff, -was given by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. It was contended by Mr. Inder, for the plaintiff, that Part I. of the War Legislation Act of 1916 had expired in August last, and that the plaintiff was entitled to an order for possession if the tenancy had been terminated by proper notice. The magistrate said that section 8 of the Statutes Repeal and Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1920, extended the provisions of Part I. of the War Legislation Act, 1916, to August 31, 1921. The Court, therefore, had to consider whether any hardship would be involved by making or by refusing an order. The plaintiff had been refused an order for possession of the eame premises last September. He then owned two houses, but had since sold one, and was now living in a shed. Plaintiff stated in evidence that he had two sons, who were living in tents. It was elicited in cross-examination that these sons were earning their own living, and were employed with a. survey party, which "was camped. The magistrate stated that plaintiff's reference to his sons was unnecessary unless he thought the bare statement that they were living in tents would assist his case by misleading the Court. In the former proceedings plaintiff stated that the premises were required for his own occupation, .but in cross-examination he admitted that he intended to have the house renovated for the purpose of selling. The magistrate said that a plaintiff who attempted to impose a mild deception upon the Court for the purpose of enlisting the sympathy of the Court in his favour was, to say the least of it, mistaken in his tactics. Although the plaintiff was living in a shed, the hardship, if any, had not been shown to he other than a voluntary one. The defendant, for whom Mr. Sullivan apneared. had made efforts to find a home. The order was refused.