CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18675, 3 October 1922, Page 9

CITY POLICE COURT

Monday, Octobee 2. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) Drunkenness.—Three first offenders, who •were charged wtih drunkenness, did not appear. They were each fined 20s, m default 21 hours' imprisonment. , Breach of Prohibition Order-Joseph Sutherland was charged with disorderly behaviour- while drunk, and also with nitnno- - the terms of his prohibition order on two different occasions.-Sub-inspector hccie s stated that on one of these occasions the defendant had been found in the I'armors Arms Hotel, but it was only fair to the licensee to say that ho did not know the man was there.-The Mapstrate.. niter inspecting the accused's record, remarked that he was rather a blackguard, 'but ho would be given another chance for the sake of hu wife and family.-On the, charge of drunkenness, the defendant was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within three months The other charges were also adjourned, the Magistrate remarking that.it would be the defendants last chance. , Theft of Shoes.—A married woman named Ethel. Madigon was charged with stealing three pairs of shoes on separate dates between April and September. The total value of the shoes was £4 3s 3d.—Mi- W. G. Hay, who appeared for the accused, pleaded guilty to all the charges.—Chief Detective Bishop, in describing the method adopted by the accused, stated that her system was to enter a boot shop and order several pairs of mixed B hocs—women's and children's. She would then leave these to be fitted with rubber soles or protectors, and would give instructions for them to bo delivered to a Mrs Watson, at a certain address in Hanover street, where they would bo paid for. Some time after she had left the shop it would bo discovered that a pair of shoes was missing, nnd when the parcel was delivered at the address in Hanovor street it was found that there was no Mrs Watson_ at all. Later the accused's house was visited by detectives, and the stolen shoes were found there. The Chief Detective added that ho would not ask for a fine, merely for restitution. Tho woman had not been before the court previously, and the family was In poor oircumEtances.—Mr Hay said this was one of those unfortunate cases in , which a respectable woman, the wife of a lespectable man, had given way to temptation. For some months past the husband's wages had not averaged £2 5s a week, and as there was a family of four children it was difficult to know how they managed. Tho husband would make restitution as soon as he could nnd the money. Mr Hay asked that an _ order should be made prohibiting publication ot tho name.—The Magistrate said that if this had been a case of a single theft one would have viewed the matter with more consideration, but here a system had been disclosed. and a system which it was very difficult to detect. Taking the position of the famuy into consideration he would place the accused on probation for a period of six months, on condition that restitution was made in such payments as the probation officer thought fit. He did not think that publication of the name should bo prohibited, as publication was part of the punishment in these, cases. An Information Dismissed.—John Frederick Hammerley was charged with turning from George street into St. Andrew street without keeping as far as possible to the left hand side of the road. Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for tho defendant, who pleaded not guilty Evidence was given for the prosecution by Margaret Kcarns (in the form of a written statement, which was admitted), Constables XJsmar and Parkhill, William Simpson, and William Henry Rumble. This evidence showed that the defendant was travelling south along George street at about 10 miles an hour, and when turning into St. Andrew street he collided with the witness Kearna and knocked her down. Bumble stated that tho car took the crossing so suddenly that some of tho foot passengers were confused, ond did not know which way to go—Mr Irwin said that the defendant had come along the left-hand side of George street, and had made the usual wide sweep when he reached the corner. That was shown by the position of the car when it finished j' the defendant had taken the widest possible pweep the accident would have happened just the same.—The defendant said that when he saw that an eccident was inevitable ho stopped his car within three-quarters of its own length. It skidded Bft or 9ft. The woman, who had been knocked down had first of all hesitated and then walked on Alex. Watt, expressman, said that in ms opinion the defendant had crossed on the right side of the road and had been very unfortunate to knock anyone down.—The Ma"istrate said there, was no suggestion of speeding in this case, but there was some evidence that tho car had cut across the street at an angle. This evidence had been given quit© clearly, but "it was possible that •the witnesses had been mistaken, and that their judgment of the occurrence had been affected by tho accident. He was inclined to accept the evidence of the witness Watt as to what had happened, and the information would therefore be dismissed. By-Laws Infringed.—William Wmtrup was fined 20s, and costs (7a), for leaving a horse unattended in Cumberland street for eeveral hours.—The Magistrate remarked that the man was fortunate not to be charged with cruelty to animals. William Brown, who was charged with leaving a motor car unattended in George street during IJi* greater part of the afternoon, was fined 6s, and costs (7s). Tho case against John Aitcheson, who was charged with driving a delivery van past a standing tramcar, was adjourned for a week, as the evidence showed that the vehicle which he was driving was a gig. Gordon Godfrey was fined 40s, and cost 3 (7«), for driving a motor car past a stationary tramcar. For a similar offence Thomas Fergus was fined 20s, and costs (7s) The Defence Act.—Joseph Dawson, who •was charged with failing to register under the Defence Act, was fined! 15s, and costs (7s) Drainage Board By-Laws.—Messrs Jowsey and Galland were charged with doing certain drainage work without having obtained a permit, and also with carrying out the work without proper appliances. Mr Anderson, who appeared for the defendants, pleaded guilty to both charges—lnspector Knox stated that the work had now been done in accordance with the by-laws and to the satisfaction of the board.—Mr Anderson paid the work which had been done m the first place was purely of a temporary nature and there hod been no intention to evade thft by-law The defendants had been quite frank about the matter, and he submitted that a nominal penalty only should be imposed —The Magistrate said the defendants should have known the position. Evidently the Drainage-Board wished to stop this sort of thin" They would be fined 20a, and costs (7s), on the first charge, and Ito, and costs (7s), on the second.