CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16610, 5 February 1916, Page 11

CITY POLICE COURT

Fiiidat, Fkbbuaiiy 4. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) By-la.iv Cases. —Charles Todd was charged with placing an obstruction —a motor oar — in jtbgU street, and pleaded guilty. Senior iSergoant Dart explained that tno defendant was under trio impression that his son was driving tho car homo, and it was inadvertently left out all night. The defendant was ordered to pay court oosts (7s). i'or driving a motor car Ironi George street into Moray place at a j«ico exceeding four miles an hour, William l'oliook was lined ss, with oosts (7s); and for driving a motor cycle around a corner at moro than four miles an hour, Douglas A. ltowntree was similarly mulcted. A fino of ss, with costs (7s), was imposed on Hunter iVl'Keohnie for driving a motor oar on the wrong side of Rattray street, and Gustavo Johnston, who did not appear to answer a similar charge, was fined 10s, with costs (7s). John Thomson was lined ss, with oosts (7s), for riding a motor cycle on a footpath. A Maintenance Case.—August Switalli applied to have a maintenance order against him oancullod on the ground that he could not pay anything. Tho order was for 7s 6d a. week for the support of a child, and the arrears amounted to £53 ss. The applicant stated that ho had been under medioal treatment at Clyde and Alexandra for 12 months. W hen in work ho earned 7s or 8s a day. It took £1 per week to keep him, and he sent about £3 or £4 a month to a person to whom ho owed six months' board. liis health was such that tho doctor said he would not bo able to earn anything for some months.. —benior Sergeant Dart said that tho applicant had always paid something on the order when pressed.—Tho Magistrate held that ho applicant had not satisfied him of inability to pay, and refused the application.—Senior Sergeant Dart 6tated that the police would not bring tho applicant before the oourt if they were satisfied that he had no money or could not have any. Shops' Act.—Wardell Bros, were charged with failing to close their shop at 1 p.m. on Saturday, December 18, in that a shop assistant in their employ was delivering goods to customers after that hour. Inspector Browett corducted the prosecution, and Mr A. §• Adams appeared for the defendant company.- Mr Adams entered a plea of guilty, but urged in extenuation of the breach that the horse in the delivery cart had had to be taken to a blacksmiths while on tho round, thereby losing an hour. Hie goods were eatables, and had they not been delivered customers would have had to wait for necessaries until Monday. —The assistant gave evidence, and tho Magistrate said that this showed that even had the mishap to the horse not occurred the assistant would have been an hour after his time. —Tho defendant company was fined 10s and costs. A Culpable Act.—George Thomas Gillies was charged with committing mischief by killing a heifer valued at £3, the; property of W. S. Bateman. He was represented by Mr C. N. Scurr, and pleaded guilty under aggravating circumstances. —Senior Sergeant Dart, in outlining tho case, said that the accused and the complainant lived on the Main South road. The complainant had a section close to the house of the accused, jik! had put a nine months' old heifer upoi it. The accused became very annoyed at tho heifer, and eventually went to see tho complainant about it. The complainant was not at home, but the accused saw his wife and told her to inform her husband that the heifer must be removed or ho would shoot it. Next morning the .complainant went to see the accused, who 'repeated his threat, and then got a. rifle and' in the presence of the complainant started firing at the heifer. Tho shooting was of a most indiscriminate nature, the accused not putting the rifle to his shoulder, and moreover the direction was towards the road, thereby greatly endangering the lives of people who might happen 1o be passing by. The accused wis in an uncontrollable state of temper, and >'t was a fair thing to suppose that it was not safe for a man like him to have a veapon at all.—Mr Scurr stated that the' complainant had a section between two belonging to the accused. The heifer was tethered upon this in such a way that it would graze upon, tho property of the accused. There was no boundary fence,, and there had been a great deal of trouble over tho heifer. The accused eventually became so annoyed over the animal, which was a nuisance to the whole neighbourhood, that at last ho foolishly shot it. The accused did not fire indiscriminately. Ho wa<? an expert shot.—The Magistrate said that the accused had done a very culpable thing, and was liable to 12 months' imprisonment. However, he would inflict a monetary penalty, but it must be a substantial one. The accused would be fined £10, with costs (13s), in default two months' imprisoxment.