CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17218, 22 January 1918, Page 7

CITY POLICE COURT

Monday, Januaby 21.

(Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.)

Drunkenness.—A female first offender, who did not appear, was fined 20s, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment. A male first offender (on remand) was ordered to •pay medical expenses (£1 lis), in default seven days' imprisonment.

Disorderly Behaviour.—Kiim Chang was charged with Jjaving been drunk and dis-orderly.—Sub-inspector Mathieson asked for a short remand, as, since his arrest it had been allegedl that accused had assaulted one of Barton and Trengrove's employees.—Tho Magistrate did not think he could grant a remand. He would hear the other charges.—Constable Smale said that the accused was very drunk when he accosted him on Saturday afternoon at the corner of Manse and Stafford! streets. He explained in broken English that he wanted some meat, and could not be made to understand that the shop was not open for business. He was very excited and was struggling with one of Barton and Trengrove's employees. One of his own countrymen, who came on the scene, failed to pacify him.—Constable Archibald (watchhouse keeper) deposed l that accused smelt strongly of whisky when brought to tho lock-up.—Fined 40s, in default 14 days' imprisonment

Threatening Behaviour.—Leo Smith, 17 years of age, was charged with threatening behaviour, whereby a breach of the peace was created. —Sub-inspector Mathieson stated that the defendant, who was a steward on board a hospital ship, had an altercation in a right-of-way near Walker's Private Hotel, in Princes street, on Saturday afternoon, and accused l , who said he was called a liar, struck one of his companions on tlie face several times.—Defendant, who pleaded guilty, was fined 10s, in default, 48 hours' imprisonment.

Sent to Roto Roa.—William Davidson, a prohibited person, was charged (1) with drunkenness, (2) with obtaining liquor during the currency of a prohibition order, and (3) with being on licensed premises during tlie currency of a prohibition order. —Accused asked for a chance, and he would go to the country. He had seen close on three years' active service.—Mr F. G. Oumming stated that he had known accused for many years. During the past five months he had been drinking heavily. Ho thought it was time that some definite steps should be taken to curb his drinking. While he was away his wife, who was a bardworking, respectable woman, did exceedingly well.—The Rev. Vincent King said that the children had to be placed in an orphanage. The wife had to take out a separation order against her husband on different occasions. He was suffering from chronic asthma, contracted whilst abroad, and the medical opinion was that it would be in his own interests if he were sent to a place where drink was unprocurable.—Accused was committed to Roto Roa for a period of 12 months.

Maintenance.—Arthur Geo. Bossward was proceeded against by his wife for maintenance. Mr B. S. Irwin (instructed by Mr Hanlon) appeared for the complainant, and Mr C. N. Scurr for the defendant.— Complaintant stated that tho defendant since ho returned from active service had been most unsatisfactory as far as lils domestic life was coneerncd. He had lived with her for two months, then she obtained a separation order, and defendant agreed to pay £1 Is per week. lie kept up the payments for three weeks. She understood he was living with another soldier's wife. She had asked him io come back because she realised ho was going from bad to worse, but ho would not- <Jo so. He came back 'and stopped for one night only. The woman he was staying with had intimidated witness. Complainant was not in good health, and had been under a doctor for seven or eight-months.— Constable Sivver deposed that it was nothing uncommon for the police to be called to watch defendant at his home when he was in drink.—Mrs Jackson said the complainant was a hard-working woman. —At this stage Mr Scurr asked the magistrate to fix the maintenance. The defendant was earning £2 18s per week. He denied that he. was living with another woman.— Mr IrwirT.said this woman's allotment had been stopped because the defendant was living with her. —Defendant, was ordered to pay 25s per week, and a separation order was granted.