CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19203, 20 June 1924, Page 9

CITY POLICE COURT.

TIiUItSDAY, JUNK 19. (Before Mr J. 11. Bartholomew, S.M.) —William Puller, about 4.1 years of age, pleaded not guilty to having, on June IS, attempted to obtain from KmiJy Jacobs ninepcnco by representing a penny piece to be a two shilling piece.—limily Jacobs stated that her mother was proprietress o£ the Rainbow Private Hotel, and that she was a waitress there. She knew accused through his coming in for meals. Ho had been at the hotel the previous morning, and had had breakfast, and had tendered in payment a coin which she took to be half a crown, instead of which it was a penny. She told accused it was a penny, and lie replied that it was two shillings, and stated that he had got it in change the night before at the hotel. He moved off, but was stopped on the stairs, but finally went out. The • price of the breakfast ha had had was Is 3d, The coin presented was later handed to the police.—Mary Selina Jacobs, proprietress of the hotel, stated that she stopped accused and told him lie had given her daughter a penny instead of a half-crown. He said it was a two shilling piece. She thought his sight was bad, and wanted him to examine the penny, but he refused, and tried to get away. Witness eaid she would get a policeman, "and he had redetective Karquharson said he found accused about 200 yards along the street from the hotel, and asked him if he had been at the llainbow Hotel for breakfast that morning, and he replied that he had. Witness asked him why he had tried to pass a silvered penny for his meal, and he had said lie had got it there in change the previous day. He also said that on the previous day he had been in for a meal, and had tendered a £1 note in payment, and believed that in the change lie had received the silvered penny, TV it ness asked him why he had not given it back to Mrs Jacobs, and he replied that he had not noticed it till later in the day. He asked accused if he knew it was a silvered penny, and he replied “Yes.” He was subsequently arrested. He had stated that he was a farm labourer, and had been working at Oamuru and Waikouaiti befoie coming to Dunedin. He was in a good financial position, judging from the documents found upon him. Witness thought the man was mentally weak to a certain degree.— Accused said he believed when lie tendered the coin that he had received it the previous day in change. That wag his reason for returning H. —The Magistrate: Yes, you tried to slip it in without them knowing anything about it. Why did you not do it in a straightforward manner? Accused repeated that he believed ho had received it in change, and had returned it to the, girl. If he had not believed that he would not have attempted to return it.—The Magistrate: On accused's own admission he must ho convicted.—Chief Detective Lewis, who was in charge of the case, said these coins were going round. Ho had one in his pocket which was a better counterfeit than the one before the court. The police wiehed to find out if this was the man who had been circulating the coins. It now seemed from statements made by the watehhousc keeper that the man had shown weak mental tendencies. Ho had complained of men walking past the cell, and “throwing off” at him. The police were satisfied that accused was not responsible for the circulation of these coins. Someone bad passed the coin to him., and he thought it had come from the hotel, and had passed it on again. Nothing was known against him. He (the chief detective) had thought of asking for an adjournment, but now considered it was hardly worth while. Accused must bo given to understand that ho must not carry the matter any further. He had eaid “I will fix you,” and had icpeated it several times.—Accused stated ho had said ho would got the police because ho believed he had rereived the penny from the hotel.—The Magistrate eaid that if this had been a deliberate attempt to pass the coin it would have been an offence which must be met by imprisonment. Accused w'as obviously below the average in mentality, and he (Mr Bartholomew) thought he had been victimised by the coin being on to him, and had tried to pass it on again. He would be convicted fined £3 and costs (20s), in default seven days’ imprisonment.