Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

MONDAY, OCTOBER 8. (Before Dr. A. McArthur, S.M.) Ellen Anderson, against whom there were several previous convictions, was sent to gaol for a month for loitering and importuning passers-fcy. Arthur Thomas Thorpe was convicted of drunkenness fr a third time and was fined 20s, in default seven days’ imprisonment. VVm, Ryan was fined lOs for being disorderly whilst drunk. Donald Mclnness was convicted of drunkenness and discharged, and for resisting the police he was fined 20s and ordered to pay 10s 6d for damage done to a shako.

For travelling between Featherston and Wellington without paying bis fare A. J. Smith was fined lOfi and costs (£1 Is). Walter Alexander Milne, for whom Mr Skerrett appeared, denied a charge of assaulting John R. Thomas. The case for prosecutor, a tram-conductor, was • that on. September 14th he was in charge of an Are street car. Defendant got on at the Mauawatu station and paid a previous conductor two one-section fares for his wife and

Himself. ' Informant had difficulty in getting him to pay the second section fares, and defendant refused altogether to pay tire third section fares. The \ar was stopped in Willis street, opposite St. John’s Church, and Thomas •'omandod defendant's name and ad- * osa. Thereupon, it was alleged, Milne struck him, knocking him backwards off the car platform on to the rootnath. He was badly bruised and unable to work for three weeks. Tlia motonnan and a passenger by the tram corroborated this account of the affair. Defendant was convicted and fined 20s and ■costs (£2). Katie Hertzeberg (Mr Findlay) applied for a Separation and maintenance order against her husband, Nathan Hertzeberg (Mr Baume). The apnlication was opposed on the ground that the parti* were separated under a deed by which it was agreed tint defendant should not contribute towards the support of his wife and children. Tlvis defence was successful, the information being dismissed.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19061009.2.13

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6025, 9 October 1906, Page 3

Word Count
318

MAGISTRATE’S COURT New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6025, 9 October 1906, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6025, 9 October 1906, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert