CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16293, 28 January 1915, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT

Wednesday, January 27. (Before Mr E. W. Burton, S.M.)

Drunkenness.—A first offender was fined ss, in default 24 hours' imprisonment, for drunkenness. —A prohibition order was granted against a man on the application of a friend.

Life-saving Appliances on Launches. — Anton Midclendort, of Port Chalmers, was charged with using a passenger boat without carrying life-saving appliances equal in number to one-third of the passengers and crew.—Captain Beaumont prosccuted on behalf of the department, and Mr Irwin appeared. for the defendant.—Captain Beaumont stated that the information was laid under sections 197 and 199 of "The Shipping and Seamen Act, 1903." On October 4 the defendant had left Port Chalmers with 21 passengers on board, and had only two Lfelielts with him, and no other life-saving appliances. He had failed altogether to comply with tlie regulations of the Act.— James Patrick Eager, Customs officer at Port Chalmers, stated that on Sunday. October 4, he had seen the defendant Middendorf wiirt a number of paisengers on board his launch. Witness inspected the boat, and found that the defendant had not sufficient life-savins' appliances with him, whereupon he said lie would abandon the trip. The defendant, however, made the tr : :i, and on his return in the evening witness and 1 Constable M'Entee met him, and counted 21 passengers. The defendant then told witness that if he had broken the law the department had the matter in its own hands. For the defence, Mr Irwin contended that the case must be dismissed, as the prosecution had failed to prove what was necessary. It had failed to show that the defendant was the master of the launch or that his vessel was less than 40ft in length, or that he had been plying within river limits. Further than that, there was no evidence showing the respective number of passengers and crew. —The Magistrate said that there was nothing before him as to whether the offence had been committed or not, and he must dismiss the case for want, of evidence. A similar charge against William Watson was then proceeded with, but after hearing the evidence for the prosecution the magistrate dismissed this ease also for lack of proof. Maintenance.—An order of 10s a week was made against Arthur A. S. Lennon for the support of his illegitimate child, Lennon also to pay £4 4s past maintenance and £6 6s doctor's fee.