CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19039, 8 December 1923, Page 19

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, December 7. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, SIM.) Drunkenness.—A first offender, who gave his ago as twenty-five years and who had been remanded for treatment for a seizure with which he had been attacked had a charge of drunkenness against him dismissed. He was ordered to pay medical expensoss, two guineas.—Mr Irwin appeared for accused. A female first offender appeared on a charge ot drunkenness. —His Worship consented to dismiss the charge on condition that defendant went to tho country that day with her son, who had offered to take her away. Breach of a Separation Order.—Henry Michael Harwood was charged w-ith onterng tho dwelling of his wife during the currency of a separation order.—-He pleaded guilty. Senior-sergeant Mathieson stated that the order had been recently niade, and accused was expected to keep away from his wife’s house. His excuse had been that ha iveut to see his baby child, and the police had ascertained that that statement was quite true. —Mr Bundle warned accused that he must keep away from the house.—Accused asked if the court would make an order for him to see his child, and an order was made. Bv-law Cases. —Jamies Atkinson was charged with failing to stop a motor cycle in Princes street, near High street, when requested to do so by Constable Russell. — The case was dismissed, the Magistrate remarking that defendant had probably made a mistake. Frederick Charles Hodges was fined 6s and costs for a similar offence. George M’Latchie pleaded not guilty to having loft his motor car standing without lights at tho corner of Knowles street. —He stated that the lights had been deliberately extinguished, and produced a document showing that he had purchased kerosene that evening.—A conviction was merely entered against him. Over Hours. —Brown’s (Ltd.) was charged with having employed a female shop assistant after 9.30 p.m. —Mr Hanlon appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty.—'Percy Henry Kinsman stated that on November 8 he had found a female assistant employed in the shop. _ She advised him that she was , employed up to 10.30 that evening. Brown’s (Ltd.) had been warned on several occasions.—Mr Hanlon explained that Mr and Mrs Connor were to have relieved the assistant at 9.30 p.m., bui they were late in arriving, and the girl had worked- till 9.45 p.m..—Defendant was fined 10s and

costs (7s).