CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16480, 4 September 1915, Page 13

CITY POLICE COURT

Friday, September 3. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Drunkenness.—John Waugh Mulligan was fined ss, in default 24 hours' imprisonment. Benjamin Brazelian West Coates, who had been once previously convicted within the past six months, was fined 10s and was similarly dealt with on charges of breach of a prohibition older ancl pro curing liquor while prohibited. John Kendall was fined 225, including 2s cab hire, in default seven days' imprisonment. By-law Cases.—Young Kem was fined 6s, witn costs (7s), for permitting a chimney m his .-house at Walker street to be oil hre.---William Broadfoot, for allowing his horse to be at large without proper guidance, was fined ss, with costs (7e) Samuel Hall -was similarly dealt with on a charge of allowing cattle to wander in ColImgwood township.—For lighting fires in the open air m the city without a permit from the town clerk, i'rancis Cuminc and George Hubbard were each fined ss, without costs.- —James Liddell pleaded not guilty to a charge of depositing rubbish at a place at tho north end of Melville Btreet which was not a public tip.—Evidence was given by Jnspcctor Donaldson and two other •witnesses in support _ of the prosecution to the effect that this rubbish created a most offensivo smell.—The defendant stated that the place in question had been used as a tip for years, and he had not deposited any otfesive matter there.—The magistrate imposed a fine of 20s, with'costs (21s). For driving food refuse and vegetable matter intended for pig feed along George street, without it bong enclosed in tins of barrels, David Wiikie was fined 10s, with costs (7s).

Breach of Shops and Offices Act.—Henry Louis Gallien was charged with failing to keep in the prescribed form a timo and wages book; also with employing a shop assistant (George Wells) in or about his shop after 1 p.m. on Saturday, the statutory half-holiday.—Mr Aspinall, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded guilty to the first charge, and not guilty to the eecond—lnspector Browett and Mr Barton gave evidence that the assistant was engaged after hours on the dav in question — For the defence, Mr Aspinall said tho assistant in question had his meals with the defendant, wno lived on tho premises, and on the day in question he finished duty at 12.40 p.m., and had lunch. The defendant went out about 1 p.m. and told tho assistant that he would bo back in a few minutes. When the inspector rang tho assistant, thinking it was the defendant, went to Ihe door to let him in. The inspector entered the premises and aekod the assistant if he had any hot water bottles. Tho assistant replied, "There they are,"' pointing to the bags. Tho inspector then said, " Do you know who I am?' I am an inspector." The defendant never employed his assistants after hours.—Tho defendant and his assistant having given evidence, the magistrate said tho defendant would be convicted on both charges. On the first he would be fined £2. with costs (7s), and on the second 10s, with costs (7s).