CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12604, 6 March 1903, Page 7

CITY POLICE COURT.

Thursday, MARCH 5. (Before Mr E. H. Carew, S.M.) Illegally on Premises.—Thomas Biunden. • pleaded '' Guilty" to being found by night , without lawful excuse in tho enclosed yard of i Henry Brendt, Manor place—The facts stated , showed that the man had been sleeping on the premises without permission. There were previous convictions against accused for the same offence, and a sentence of 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour was imposed. Maintenance.—On the application of Mr Miller, an order was made against Charles A. Barnes for the payment of <ls weekly towards tho support of his illegitimate child. Charges of Theft.—Four further charges against Robert Lawson of theft of small i amounts from J. P, Mason were withdrawn, on ! the application of Mr Hay, accused pleading i " Not guilty." On a previous charge Mr Hay . staled accused had been sentenced to two months' imprisonment. Travelling on an Expired Railway Ticket.— Twentymau Hodgson was charged with, on | September 11, when travelling from Christchurch to Dunedin, using a ticket the time for the use of which had expired.—Mr Eraser appeared for tho prosecution and Mr Hay for defendant, who pleaded " Guilty."—ln stating I the case Jlr Fraser said defendant was a drover, residing at AYoodlam 1 - a.i:d on September 1 last year took out ad,,. .-er's ticket to go from Woodlands to Dunedin. Under the regulations such ticket was available for return for seven days. By mistake of a clerk it was made returnablr for 10 days. The mistake was ' noticed in transit to Addington, and rectified , at Addington on the ticket by the department, j Defendant went to Addington and overstayed j his time, and there made application for exteusion of time, which was refused. The ticket was handed back to him, instead of being impounded, and used by him. Hodgson was repeatedly applied to by the department to refund the fare (12s 9d), but declined to do so.— ; Mr Hay contended that the defendant had 1 simply been misled by the action of some j blundering railway official nt Christchurch. He had applied for an extension, and was uncertain whether it had been granted or not, and when the guard brought him back the ticket, with September 12 marked on it, he concluded it had been extended till that time. There was no objection made till there was a change of guards. Further, having a claim against the Railway Department for £30, he had written to the department asking for the balance after the fare had been deducted.— His Worship said it seemed clear that defendant in the first place travelled improperly with the ticket, and even if ignorant at the < time, when he found it out afterwards he should have paid the amount. Instead of that he | wanted to take advantage of ,i mistake made ■ by the Railway Department, Defendant would 1 be fined £1, with costs (28s). i