CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18158, 1 February 1921, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT

Monday, January 31.

(Before Mr J.

It. Bartholomew, S.M.)

Drunkenness. —Robert Lawrence, a statutory first offender, was fined 20s, in default 48 hours’ imprisonment, for this offence, as were James MTntosh and Annie Marr, who did not appear, while Louisa Findlay, who had previously been fined, was fined 40s. James M"Gregor Smith (tor whom Mr Hanlon appeared) was further remanded to secure the attendance of a witness whom he had located in Central Otago. A remand for a week was granted. Breach of Prohibition Order.—George Bennett, for entering licensed premises during the currency of a prohibition older, was fined 10s, with the alternative of seven days’ imprisonment. An Unregistered Motor Cycle. Vv uliam John Muskiil was charged with being the owner of an unregistered motor-cycle, ibe offence was admitted, and defendant was fined 20s. with 7s costs. Expressmen’s Solicitation. —Albert Buddioomb, John Conn, and Wm. Carter were charged with being on the railway station in order to solicit custom. —Mr A. C. HanIno appeared for the defendants, and anzioußCdd that Conn admitted an offence, but the others denied it.- —Robert Henry Simons, stationmaater at Dunedin, stated that the accused were, on tho 20th inst,, in a part of tho railway station prohibited to expressmen. A day or two previously ho had cautioned Buddioomb.—To .Mr Hanlon: He did not hear Carter touting, but ho raised his hand as expressmen generally did to attract custom— Henry Patrick Stan- ( away, chief clerk, gave corroborative evidence. Carter and Buddicomb both had expressmen’a caps on.—To Mr Hanlon: Me would not swear to Carter, but he was confident Buddioomb had an expressman s cap, and he had no luggage by him.—William Clarkson, coaching foreman, said he considered the defendants were simply standing there, waiting for customers. —ihe Magistrate : There was no train going out at that time. —Carter and Buddicomb, in their evidence stated that Carter went to the station to see Buddicomb about the hire or purchase of a horse, and Buddioomb was there with some luggage for a passenger. Neither of them had his expressman s cap on.—ihe Magistrate said it was for the prosecution to satisfy him that the defendants were there looking for custom, but their evidence was indefinite. The defendants’ statement was believable. He would dismiss the charges against Carter and Buddicomb. while. Conn would be fined 10s, with 15s witnesses fees, and 13s court, costs. . Wasting Water.—Leonard Jones, janitress .if the Oaversham School, was charged with using a hose in cleansing the school.—Mr T K. Sidey, for the defendant, admitted that a technical breach of the by-laws had been committed, but the defendant was simply following the usual practice.-Mr W. Crawford, municipal officer, said that attention had been drawn towtho offence oy a quantity of water flowing down the street. An inspector found the gate locked, but jumped the fence and through a window saw the janitress and her son. washing not only the floor but the forms and desks with a hose.—A conviction was recorded, and defendant‘was ordered to pay tho court C °indiotablo Offences.—Georg© Alexander Magorian was charged with breaking and entering by day the dwelling-house of Ronald M’Donald and stealing therefrom some mobiloil valued at £1 15s. 1 set oi stocks and dies (value £2 10s), one razor hone (value £5), and a safety razor (value 25s).—Mr J. B. Callan appeared for accused -Ronald John M‘Donald of gave evidence regarding the thefts. Before leaving his residence he saw that ail doors and windows -were closed, -and to the best of his belief they were locked. On returning at night he noticed that during his absence his house bad been entered- and the articles raeintioned in the information stolen. Some boards had been removed from the window of an outhouse, which was also entered and ihe oil mentioned stolen. He was present with Detective Palmer when accused’s room was searched, and the “Hides mentioned were recovered. Detective Palmer gave formal evidence regarding the arrest Accused at first denied having broken into the house or taken anything therefrom, but later on admitted having done so.—Accused pleaded guilty, and was remanded to the Supreme Court for sentence, bail being tenewed m accused a own surety of £SO and two of £25 each.—John James StuWey was .charged with breaking and entering by night the office of the Dunedin and Suburban Coal Company, and stealing therefrom brooches of the value of £l, the property of Mary Jane Tinker; also with breaking and mitering the property of the Waitaki Dairy Company, with intent to commit a crime, and with stealing therefrom a bunch of keys of the value of 20s.—John William Tinker and Mary Jan© Tinker (his niotner) gave evidence -regarding the offence at the Dunedin and Suburban Coal Company s office. Mr Tinker also stated that an attempt had been made to break open the safe, and the handle broken.-Francis William Pile, accountant at the Waitaki Dairy Company, stated that on December 17 the office was broken and entered, the drawers ransacked, and the manager s desk broken open; also the safe door was damaged, and a bunch of keys was stolen. 'Hie keys produced were those which had been stolen.— Detective Palmer deposed as to the arrest of the accused, who admitted having cornpitted the offences—Accused, who pleaded -niltv was remanded to the Supreme Oourfc or sentence. William Thomas Pickering, . former postal official, was charged with dealing 10 pairs of earrings, of the total >alue of £4 11s 6d; a man’s shirt, valued . it 10s 6d; ladies’ blouses, valued at £4; lady’s boots, valued at 255; and 30s in money. Chief Detective Bishop prosecuted. Norman M. Sutherland, employed at Donald Stuart and Oo.’s, Dunedin, on Cto tober 1 packed 10 pairs of pearl earrings ir. a packet addressed to Mr J. O Leary, jeweller Timaru, and gave the packet to the office boy to pdst. Albert E. O’Neil, postal official, stationed at Dunedin, said he signed for a. parcel (No. 510) addressed to Mr O’Leary, Timaru, which was subsequently Reported missing. This bag, m which the parcel should have gone, would have been tied by accused, who at that time was a messenger at the Post Office.— Frank G. Cairns, employed at the D.S.A., said on October 6 he put a shirt m a parcel to be forwarded to Mr L. A. Thomas, Middlemarch. It was valued at 11s _od.— Edward H. K. Hughes, postal official at Dunedin, said that on October 6 he received a parcel addressed to Mr Thomas, Middlemarch. The bag in which this parcel should have gone was dealt with by accused.—James A. Strong, cadet at the Post Office, Dunedin, said that at 5 p.m. on November 30 he hung up his overcoat in, a passage leading to the parcels office. _ In the coat pocket was a wallet containing £1 and 10s in notes. At 11 p.m. this money was missing. Accused was on duty there, and had an opportunity to steal it.— Frederick J. Chisholm, chief postmaster at Dunedin, said that he had complained to the police of these thefts. By arrangement with the police, witness put a marked £1 note in a pocket book, which .he placed in a coat, and hung it up in the parcels room. He and Senior Detective Kemp concealed themselves, and watched the coat for five hours and a-half. After 10 p.m. witness said he saw accused take the coat, abstract the pocket book, take the £1 note out. and put it in his pocket, and then return the pocket bonk. Thev followed accused, and Detective Kemp placed his hand on his shoulder, whereupon accused, without being asked for it, handed the note over to witness, who took it, and said; “At last!” Accused, who repeated those words, was then arrested. Next day witness went with the police to accused’s house, and there found the blouses and boots produced. wh : oh he admitted stealing from the Post Office. Accused had been employed since September last as temporary postal messenJ,p r .—_<4 Pn i o r Detective Kemp corroborated the evidence given by the previous witness rco-ardinn- the arrest of the accused, who made a statement admitting several thefts since ho started, his work at the Post Office, the goods stolen being those mentioned in the charges—Accused pleaded guilty, and was remanded to the Supreme Court for sentence, being admitted to bail, himself m a surety of £IOO and two sureties of £SO each. Archiba'd Cooper Person appeared to answer two ndiourned charges of theft. —Chief Detective, Bishop said that inquiries had been made at Fcild'ng. but very little light was thrown upon the matter. —Mr F. («. Cumming said he had made inquires, but could not carry the matter further than the date of his residence in Dunedin. — The Magistrate said this youth appeared to be deliberately entering on a career of dishonesty. He would bo sentenced to two yea's in e. reformatory. Maintenance Cases.—Marv Ritchie Douglas (for whom Mr H. Brasch appeared) applied for a separation order and maintenance for the guardianship of the children. The reason for the application was the defendant’s persistent cruelty.—Mrs Douglas said she had had to leave her husband on several occasions on account of his cruelty. He had more than once threatened to kill her and commit suicide.—The orders asked for were made, the wife bomg granted £2 5s per week maintermnce.--Jean Macaskill (represented bv Mr A S. Adams) sued Alexander Macaskill (for whom Mr B. S. Irwin appeared) for the maintenance of their children. Mr Adams said the wife had been twice refused maintenance, but this was on account of what had ovomred since the last'refusal. I lamsiff feld goas tfi bsi people, tp® children

used to get their meals there, but used to sleep with their father. Now there was no house as defendant had sold it.—Mr Irwin said that was so, but this was only after complainant had removed the furniture.—Mr Adams said sufficient furniture had been left in the house for the husband and children. What the wife had taken represented her own furniture. —Mr Irwin; Purchased by the husband’s money. He contended that this was a back-handed way of endeavouring to; get behind tho order of the court.—After hearing evidence from the plaintiff and defendant, and counsel’s addresses, the Magistrate . said the case had not been Carried much further than at tho last hearing. The husband’s position was unassailable. The wife could go back to the husband, who was prepared to supply a home. There had not been any refusal on his part. It was a proper attitude for a father to take up, that if the mother wanted money she must ask for it, and not send young children. Something would have to be done about the children. Up to the present time he did not think tho husband had had an opportunity to provide for them. If ho failed in that reepect, then it would be for the court to take action. _ The present proceedings would be dismissed. Damaging a Window.—Robert Chiswcll was charged with damaging a pane of glass belonging to Mr V. M. Dickenson. —Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the defence. —James Glaister, employed by Mr Dickenson, said he heard a crash as the latter’s window was broken, and questioned defendant, who admitted the offence and offered to pay, but witness did not know whether he was giving a right name and address and gave him in charge.—Detective Hall gave evidence as to the arrest of defendant. He said that if defendant had admitted the offence, and said it was an accident, that would have been all there was_ in it so far as he was concerned.—Mr Irwin contended that the charge of wilfully breaking the window had not been sustained. The Magistrate pointed out that if he had recklessly broken it that implied the same thing.—Defendant said he was standing in front of Dickenson’s window with a bag on his back. He stepped hack to give u lady room to pass and fell against the window. —The Magistrate said the evidence fell short of what was required. Defendant’s evidence tallied to some extent with that given by_ the prosecution. Ihe accused 'would be discharged. .