CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18467, 31 January 1922, Page 9

CITY POLICE COURT

Monday, Jakttaby 80. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew’, S.M.) ‘ Health Department Prosecutions.—The Department of Health preferred charges against several persons for various offences a garnet the Health regulations, these being particularly in regard to nuisances likely to lead to the encouragement of rats. —Tbs first was against James Benjamin Shanks, of Georgs street. Port Chalmers, who was charged with allowing an accumulation of chaff and fowl manure to create a nuisance in a room connected with a motor garage. Mr F'. B. Adams (Crown Prosecutor) conducted the case. Ho stated that when Inspector Armour visited the place the accused was not there, but the inspector saw bis son and told him that if the place were not cleaned up there would be a funeral The young man did not report the matter to his father, and it was only after another inspector had made a visit that anything was done.—lnspector Armour gave evidence. *ln the course of cross-examination he admitted that the nuisance was not offensive further than that it was calculated to encourage rats. The eon said something about cleaning up the promises, but remarked that he had a wedding to attend, and it was that that led to witness making the remark about a funeral. He said there would be a funeral, not a wedding.—The defendant said that he bought 85 chickens—prize birds—and had to take delivery of them, as they could not be kept where they were. Many people bad visited the place to look at them, but there bad been no complaints about any nuisance. There was nothing offensive.—The Magistrate, in giving judgment, said there seemed to have been a certain amount of carelessness. It was not a bad case of its kind, and at an ordinary time would probably not have led to a prosecution. The case showed that the Health authorities were diligent, and it was. satisfactory to know that that was so. The defendant would he convicted and fined 10s, with costs (7s), and solicitor’s fee (£2 3s). Sue Sing, -of S Carroll street, was charged on two informations,. one referring to an inhabited room not properly ventilated, and the other to an 'accumulation of fowl manure, Thevcose was adjourned till Friday to give the defendant, who obviously did not understand English too well, ■ the advantage of an interpreter.,-—William M. Adhm, fruiterer, of Princes street, pleaded not guilty to permitting a rfiiisance in the shape of three tins of moulded fruit, bread refuse, and a litter of fruit oases and*'packings in the cellar and on a top flat. Mr. Allan defended. —Mr Adams' said that Inspector Armour visited the place on the 10th inst. The moulded fruit, the stale bread, and a quantity of peas were in a room above the shop, and the fruit cases and packings were in the cellar below. All were calculated to encourage and harbour rats. The defence was that such a business as a fruit business cbuld not be conducted without a certain amount of litter. The defendant stated that the refuse was taken sway daily except Mondays, with the exception of the fruit coses, which were called for from time to time.—After the evidence had been concluded the Magistrate said that the provisions of the Act were not aimed at a business which could not bo carried cn without a certain amount of nuisance, but in the present case there bad evidently been some negligence and carelessness, He was satisfied that the fruit and } bread had been in the room for some time, and the paper refuse seemed to be in Excess of what would bo expected where the promises were being cleared regularly. He imposed a fine of 20s, with costs (7s), and solicitor’s fee (£2 2s). Theft and Forgery.—Arthur Henry Douglas M'Dougall, a young man recently in tho employ of the Repatriation Department, pleaded guilty to £l3 3s 4d, the property of the Sew Zealand Government, and to forging a document—viz., endorsing a cheque by writing on it the name of B. A. Young, with the intention that .it should be acted upon as if genuine. Mi Adams prosecuted, and Mr £. S. Irwin wbb present in the interests of the accused.—Mr Adams said that the accused was in the employ of the department for some time and the defalcations took place while he was there. The accused had signed a statement admitting the offences, and the full amount of the defalcations had been repaid by the accused’s brother, being supplied by the father. When the money was returned it was hoped, though no guarantee could be given, that there would be no prosecution. The Audit Department, however, insisted that prosecution should be made in all oases.—The first witness was Harold Douglas Tennant. District Repatriation Officer at Dunedin, who said that the accused was oinployed in the office from June, 1919, to November 14 last year, when he was suspended on account of certain complaints. Witness had! no reason to believe from bis own observations that the accused bad been drinking during business hours. The accused handled petty cash and moneys .in connection with loans to soldiers and subsidies in‘respect to various traders. A vouchor produced for £l4 Ss 4d wtas for payment of .withhold subsidy, and the amount should have been paid over at the time the voucher was signed. Check No. 44815 for £SO in favour of B. A. Young was in the accused’s handwriting. The butt was madia out in the name of W. F. Barry, furniture, from F. and F. Martin, and crossed , “not negotiable.” With regard to the furniture loans, the general practice was to pay the dealer. It was not the practice to obtain the soldier’s signature to the voucher, but it was occasionally done. Barry’s account’with F. and F. Martin was not paid by the cheque. It was paid , on December 8 by witness, the money being supplied by the accused's brother. It was the practice to sign cheques severed from the cheque book. He would not recollect personally who it was that submitted the cheque for signature, and it would not in all oases be the clerk who made out a cheque that submitted it to witness. Young had been authorised to get a loan for £SO. The loan was paid at a date later than October 26. After the accused was suspended witness’s suspicions were aroused. A letter 1 was brought to him by a telegraph messenger. Witness was not aware of all the defalcations mentioned in it, but on in vestigation he found that the letter was correct. He received the full amount of the defalcations revealed in the statement. guarantee was given that there would bo no prosecution.—To Mr Irwin; when the brother paid the amount of the defalcations witness informed him that the Director of Repatriation said there would be no prosecution unless it were ordered by the Audit Department. So far as the Repatriation Department was concerned witness gave a guarantee that there would be no prosecution. The accused had accounted for £1 more than the octual defalcations.—David Mackie Robert son, painter, Dunedin, said he had been a soldier and received some assistance from the Repatriation Department. The voucher produced was not signed by witness, and ho was not in the Repatriation office on October 12, the date it was signed. He received the money (£l4 3s 4d) on December 8, 1921. Charles John Strang accountant in the Repatriation Office, produced the cash book in use in the office. An entry on October 11, 1 1920. showed £l4 3s 4d as being cash paid to D. M. Robertson. Witness did not make the payment. The voucher had been through his hands, the number being in his writing. —John Challis, ledge rkeepor in the Bank of New Zealand, stated that the cheque showed it was cashed an October 25.—David Samuel Martin said there was an account of £SO to bo paid to F. and F. Martin by the Repatriation Department on account of W. F Barry. The amount was paid on December B.—The accused was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail was allowed in the sum of £IOO on the forgery charge, with a surety cf £IOO, or two of £SO each, and in accused’s own recognisance on the charge of theft. Maintenance.—A maintenance order for 5s per week for each child was made against Duncan Cairns U'Diarmid in respect of two children in the wife's custody. The case followed the granting of a decree nisi by the Supreme Court. Mr C. J.' L. Whi_j appeared for the complainant.