CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19041, 11 December 1923, Page 11

CITY POLICE COURT.

Mokdat, December 10. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) Repeated False Pretence. —A young man named Albert William Grant was charged with obtaining from William Schneidem, of Christchurch, goods to the value of £6 6s and money to the extent of £8 14s by means of a valueless cheque for £ls. H© was further charged with having obtained from Albert Thomas Williams goods amounting to £3 6s and cash amounting to £8 14s by means of a valueless cheque for £l2. There was a third charge against the young man of obtaining from William M. Birrell goods to the value of £3 9s 9jrd, and money, £9 Os 2jd, by means of a valueless cheque for £l2 10a. Accused pleaded guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily.—Mr Barrowdough appeared on his tehalf.—Chief-de-tective Lewis stated that accused had represented a Christchurch firm as traveller. Ho was in Dunedin about the middle of November, and had stayed at a private hotel and seemed to have got possession of the cheque hook of a Mr Campbell and had issued two cheques hero. Ho had gone back to Christchurch and could not state how ho had got the cheque book. He said he had discovered the cheque book and had burned it. He had drawn other cheques, and had given fictitious names in Christchurch. He was a married man- with two young children. and his wife was practically destitute, but he declared that she had received none of the money taken. He (the ciuef-detcc-tive) was just afraid the trouble was duo to accused spending money on other women. The cheque book had not been recovered. The accused had stated that he had borrowed it. Mr Gumming had said that accused had formerly been an inmate of a sanatorium. Accused had been committed to the Supreme Court for sentence on two other charges.—Mr Barrowclough said there was no suggestion that accused had not attended to his wife in the past. His wife made no- such suggestion, and. no ■ motley obtained dishonestly had ■ been handed to her. Some family arrangement had been made for her;' hut she had had to mort- . gage the furniture. Any punishment given accused must react more upon his wife and children than upon himself. He would make restitution, but the trouble was how •was he going to do it? Ho (Mr Barrowclough! was going to suggest to the Supreme ; Court, if it were deemed that accused was fit for admission to probation, that he be placed on probation and an order made that no must make restitution of what had been taken. He had certainly misled the police.He had committed one dishonest act and had to follow it up with another. It. was true that accused was a consumptive patient and he had been in receipt of the war pension.—Mr Bundle said accused had been committed to the Supreme Court for sentence on another charge of a similar nature, and he did not propose to deal with the present charges at present. When the cases came before the Supreme Court the facts could lie mentioned. The cases were then adjourned to Friday next. By-law Caues.—For allowing a chimney to take fire Thomas Gray was fined 10s and costs (7s). —For leaving a motor ear between sunset and sunrise without proper lights, Clias. Baker was fined 5s and costs (7s); Obas. Hunt (two charges) was ordered to pay 7s costs on one charge, the other being dismissed ; Robert Scott Moody, 5s and costs (7s); Claude ! Mervyn Walters, costs ' 7s ; Aubrey Elliott Wright, 5s and costs (7s) ; and William Robert’Waters, costa 7s. Boarding Movifig Train. —Frederick William Agnew was charged with boarding a railway train while it was in motion. It was stated that the train was leaving Port Chalmers and was travelling at the rate of. about four miles an hour when the defendand boarded it. He was fined 5s and costs (7s).