CITI POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18510, 22 March 1922, Page 9

CITI POLICE COURT

Tuesday, March 21. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) A Mean./ Theft.—Frederick Thomas Keeper was charged with stealing £l, the property of Bertha Williams.—Sub-inspector iJccles said the theft was a particular mean one. The owner of the money, who boarded with the woman with whom accused lived, complained to the police that the £1 note had been taken from her box.—Sergeant Shanahan made inquiries, and accused was very confused when questioned. He said ho had only 5s lOd on him, but when searched the sergeant found another 2s in his pockets, and a 10s note concealed in the lining of his hat. Keeper, who admitted the offence, and had previous convictions against him for theft, was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. A Criminal Kink.—Dibb Idour was charged with the theft of three overcoats, valued at £l4 10s, the property of John M'Donald. Idour, who was represented by Mr B. S. Irwin, admitted his guilt.—Chiefdeteotive Bishop said the owner, who was travelling with soft-goods, left the overcoats in a parcel in the passage of the Gridiron Hotel while he was furthering his business in another part of the hotel. When he returned he found that the overcoats had disappeared. Ho advertised for them, but without result When Detective Beer and Acting-detective Sneddon searched accused’s house they found the overcoats, one of which Idour had been wearing. As his Worship would sec, Idour had a very bad record.—Mr Irwin said his instructions were that accused had taken two parcels to the Gridiron Hotel, and someone had evidently taken one of these. The parcel containing the coats was similar in appearance to the missing parcel, and he took it home believing it to be his. Of course, the excuse was invalid, and he told Idour that, having found out Ins mistake, ho had no right to keep the coats. He was a peculiar compound. He 'would work very hard indeed for a time, as he (Mr Irwin) personally knew, but the roving instinct would get the belter of him, and he would go hawking. Then he would drink, and the end was dishonesty. He was a man of above the average intelligence, and his brother was always willing to give him work, but as soon as he commenced drinking he had to leave. He believed that if he took out a prohibition order his predatory instincts would be kept down, at least during the currency of the order. — Chief-detective Bishop said accused was n clever swindler, who sailed very dose to the wind in many cases.—The magistrate remarked that it was evident, from accused’s record, that sometimes his hard-working instincts prevailed, and sometimes those of the rogue. He would be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Maintenance Order.—The adjourned case in which Mrs Murtagh (Mr B. S. Irwin) proceeded against Charles Jns. Murtagh (Mr W. L. Moore) for disobedience of a maintenance 'order, the arrears totalling £54, was called on. Murtagh applied for remission of arrears and a variation of the order. The magistrate, after reading an approximate statement of Murtagh’s earnings for the past few months, said there did not appear to bo much chance of recovering the arrears.—Mr Irwin said the difficulty was to decide how much of Murtagh’s absence from work was due to his injured leg, and how much to his drinking habits.—The magistrate said he was convinced that some at least was due to his injury. The arrears would be remitted up to March 9, but defendant must see to it that in future he kept up his payments at the rate of £1 12s 6d per week.