CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13999, 4 September 1907, Page 7

CITY POLICE COURT.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3.

(Before MrE-Y. Widdowson, 5.11.) offenders wore convicted and fined Sscacli, in .default'2l hours' in?prisomuont. . Theft of •• Tools; T HonTy ITrancia Smith' pleaded "Guilty" to a ctiargo.'of stealing i number of; carpenters' tools'' belonging' to itobort Duiicaii, of'Pelichot Ba), and'valued, ut £2 as:—Chiof .potcctivo.iHerbort-aMod. that tlm tcale had b'co'n etolen from a lmilduig waich. was in. course of oroction, and accused ■ lad; soldi them- for 7s 6d to -a socond-haotl. dealer.' ■ The) had eiiice been recovered'. Accused waa well known, and hod; been six times previously coilviqtea for serious offences, and was now awaiting, sentence for breaking ant<t a fitore and attempting to blew open a safe and for breaking into tlio powdor magazine belonging to the Logan's Point Quarry Company.—His Worship remanded tlio cato until Eriday, bj.: which time bis Honor Mr 'Justice Williams would, it wf-s thought, havo returned to town. Damaging a Foncc.—Alfred Bowdcn was. et'jjn br.oug.ht boforo the court cm a charge of damaging a fonco on' the Ocean''.'Beach Domain.— lie Stephens . appeared for tho Domain Board, and Mr W. Downio Siowart. for defendant.—Mr Stowart said there was a dispute as to wlieiher the fence waa. on the property o( tho Domain Board or wliothor it was on tho Government road'. Defendant's contention was.that he had a right to go on the domain; It could not bo suggested that tlio aot had been a malicious one.—Mr Stephens contended that there was no question as to the situation of the fence in question, and argued that the board had a Tight to erect « fence on the: road, and that it would in -thai caso- remain Mho property of the board. Hβ iurthe/ contended (Jiat the board had a perfect 'right to cloeo, up ftiiy road or right-of-way on.its property.— His AVorsihip convicted and fined dofenctof Ms, with. witnesses' oxpenscs (ss), damage to the. toco (fofGd),' nail solicitor's fos (1 guinoa).' • Maintenance.—Josoph Arthur Hoazlowood did,not, appear to answer charges of failing to provide his wife, Violet Mary Iteazldwood, with adequate means of •'maintenance,. and vritli neglecting to maintain his seven children, between tho ages of 21 months nr.d 14 years.—Mr Lemon, who appcweil tor ■ complain ant, said tho parties entered into an egreement in February, 1906, by which they ngreed to live separately, defondant to pay so much towards Iho support of his wife and children. Tko on!y money complainant had received under this agreement, in 18 months hrao, had bjon £19 17e 10d.-His Worship pointed out that tlio.oldest boy mentioned in tho summons was 14 years of age, and could not thorcfore come within any order.—After evidonco an-order was made that defendant pay for each of the six cliildron remainine in the summons 3s 9d a week, the summons with reference to the wifo being withdrawn - Jnnioi Hendoraon and "William K. Henderson wero separatelyicharged with.failing to protklo maintenance .tor their mother,'"Jane HenclMsoii.-Mr Stewart appeared for complmuant T nnd Mr Hawkins for defendant James Henflereon.-MT Stewart ! mchtioned that Mis Henderson waa a very oM identihjiaviflc been here for 57 ye.rs.-Alter ovidene* ]ns Worship deeded to adjourn the caso for « fortnight.;in 'order that another son at Uenmka mieht be joined, at tho same time •mlimling that it was his intention, under the present circumstances, to nmke an ordor Jor2s » weak against William Henderson, and -a W a week against James Henderson. faiimmary Separaliou.-Francis Tliomas Ayres n-as charged with having failed to provide reasonable maintenance-for'his wife Jlimly Sarah Ayres, and infanf child, and i>? wife applied for an order-.under tic Married Persons.Summary Separation Act— »j \i o' VW ' f " "P? 0 "" 1 for "»P'«inant, nml Mr Scurr for defendsnt.-Mr liwin said IMP 1"? Min -\T A«gurt 17, 3806 A child had. been born. Defendant had irorlad .for. three or four weeks after ; his marriage, and then got out of employment Complainant's mother .had entered into an arrangement to purchane a house by weekly Bums for the amount'of the purchase money and she let her.daughter, and her daughter's huslWocciipy this house rent froo for some time. , Defendant did nothing for three or four months, and at that time the mother of complainant'assisted them by giving them fcod Then defendant got some odd jobs to do, and had not really got into anythinofa pimancnt character until quite receutl/ Ihc only thing defendant had bought for hie wife or. child, since tho marriage was a pair of boots. H« did not appear to appreciate his position at all, and treated the wliolo thriig aa a joke.-The wife, in her evidence stated Hat she had sometimes bread with no'butter, , and had been insufficiently fed while nursing Uio child. She had bwn without a firo on some days, and liad used a small lamp to boil the kettle onih Sciirr said that misfortune had conio upon the parties, owing to the husband nnt ge<tiii« work, and they had to put up with a little hardship, which the wifo, not being accustomed to it, had resented. Complainant's evidence ehowed that within the last two months she had been well supplied with the necessaries oi. life, and had had nothin- to complain of. ■ Counsel drew attention, io 'the fact that the grocer's bill for about six weeks Jind boon £5 Ms—Defendant's evidence was practically a denial of tho wife's statements.Ills Worship said it was quite clear to his imnti th.it dofciidant had not done tho host he could for his wiit, On the whole ho

seemed to bftvo allowed himself to drift. . Ho (bis Worship) thought tho beat thing ho .could do was toadjourn tho case fora week to give the parties an opportunity to come to some arrangemont. The case , w» adjourned accordingly,. .