CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19260, 26 August 1924, Page 11

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, August 25. (Before Mr 11. W. Bundle, S.M.) Drunkenness.—A first offender for drunkenness was fined 20s, in default 24 hours' imprisonment. Maintenance Cases. —Martin Fraser wan proceeded against for maintenance in respect of hia wife. The arrears amounted to £lB Bd.—Defendant wag sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the warrant to bo suspended if he paid -is a week off the arrears and 10s on the current order.—— Albert Joseph Preston was charged with failure to maintain his wife.—Ho was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, warrant to bo suspended if he paid £5 by September 1,5 a per week off the arrears, and 10s on the current order. Herbert Ernest Smith (Mr Stewart) applied for a variation of a maintenance order, and after evidence, which proved defendant to be a bankrupt, the arrears were remitted, and the case adjourned for one month. Separation Order Granted. —John Joseph Fleming was proceeded against by hia wife (represented by Mr B. S. Irwin) for separation, guardianship, and maintenance orders. ■—Mr Irwin stated that defendant had been an inmate of a mental hospital, and be was now making a nuisance of himself.—Defendant’s wife stated that drink had caused her husband's committal to a. mental hospital, and he was again drinking, and she was afraid of him. He used bad language, and came homo drunk about three times a week. He also ill-trealed the children. —A son of the parties concerned gave corroborative evidence. —The Magistrate made orders for separation, guardianship, and maintenance, £1 per week, with costs (£2 2s). Exceeding the Speed Limit.—Arthur George Gra'bham was charged with, on July 19, driving a, motor oar across the intersection of George and St. David streets at a speed greater than six miles an hour. —Constable M'Crae stated that ho was standing in George street, and saw defendant travelling at between 20 and 25 miles an hour. There was a good deal of traffic about at the time.—Sub-inspector Fraser said defendant bad admitted driving at 20 miles an hour. —Defendant was fined IDs (costs 7s). By-law Breaches. —Robert Dow was fined 5s (costs 7s) for leaving a motor car in Melville street without lights. A fine of 10s (costs 7a) was imposed on Clarence Joseph Bernard Ward for driving a motor car at niglit wifhont lights. A Wandering Cow.—Foi; permitting a. cow to wander at large at Highcliff road, Anderson’s Bav, Harold Hope was fined 20s (costs 7s). Cyclists in Trouble. —George Rodgerson was charged with riding an unnumbered motor cycle. It was explained that the machine was only being tried, and defendant was convicted and discharged.—■—Bernard Day, Neil Douglas, George Gibson, Hector Hanna, Leonard Hudson, Herbert Isaacs, Henry Wilkinson, and David Wraight wero charged with on various dates in July and August with having failed to proceed in a south-westerly direction while riding bicycles along the St. Clair Esplanade.—Sub-inspector Fraser explained that the prosecutions were under a new by-law, which was not well known amongst the public.—Each defendant was fined 2s Gd, without costs. Theft.—Alfred Thomas Bell was charged with having, on August 16, at Dunedin, stolen two pairs of ladies’ boots and one. panama ha.t, of the total value of £l, the property of the St. John Ambulance Association. —Accused, who was defended by Mr Hanlon, said he admitted taking the articles, but pleaded not guilty to stealing them. — Chief Detective Lewis appeared for the police.—William Lauder Shiel, manager of ShieTs motor garage, stated that accused had been in his employ. The St. John Ambulance Association left some property in the premises. Accused had no authority to interfere with the goods.—To Mr Hanlon; Witness told accused to shift the stuff with which the stolon property was afterwards put out of the show room window. When asked where to put it, witness replied that accused could put it where ho liked. —To the Magistrate: The association was going to have another sale, and this stuff left at the garage had been left over from a previous sale.— Francis George Kendall, foreman at ShieTs garage, stated that he and Detective Hart, from upstairs, saw accused have a good look round, but did not see him actually take anything. About half-past 5 o’clock he took a lage piece of paper out of the dust bin. He later went to the garage, proceeded to the front room and had a look round. He then returned to a motor car and took two parcels out of the car. He returned to the garage, presumably to lock up, and he had the two parcels under his arm. He left and went to an hotel across the road. There the parcels were opened and the stolen property was in them. Accused admitted to the detective that he had taken the things from the showroom, and said he was willing to pay for them. —Detective Hart gave corroborative evidence.—To Mr Hanlon: Witness was at the garage with the object of watching for tools. He searched accused’s home for tools, but did not find any.—Mr Hanlon said the question was whether accused Lad taken the things in such a way as to leave no doubt ns to his being a thief. Counsel suggested that although accused had taken the boots, he had not believed at the time that he had no right to do so. Somebody in ShieTs place was apparently thieving, and accused was suspected of getting away with tools. The man’s actions were consistent with innocence. He had been found openly with the goods. He (Mr Hanlon) would put in four certificates of accused’s good character, and would place him in the witness box. Kothing was known against accused. — Accnsed stated in evidence that he was told to take charge of that branch of the business. He was told to get rid of the rubbish in the showroom. The goods were with the remains of a jumble sale and Mr Shiel had told him to do what he liked with the rubbish. Ho took the things away, never intending to steal them. He told the detective the parcel caintained two pairs of boots, and a hat. —Mr Bundle said there was no doubt that the stuff was looked upon by Mr Shiel as a nuisance, and he probably used the term rubbish with regard to it. In the afternoon accused had l>een there working by himself. The shoos had not been very much worn, and anyone would know that they were of some value. If they had been rubbish ho (Mr Bundle) would have been more prepared to have a reasonable doubt in his mind as to the guilt of accused. Looking at the boots, be (Mr Bundle) was not at all satisfied that accused had regarded them as rubbish. Why should a man be willing to pay tor something that was useless? Ho might not have thought them of much value, but that they were of some value. He was quite satisfied that accused had taken the goods intending to steal them, but he would take into consideration the argument as to their being rubbish. It might have raised a doubt in accused’s mind. Accused must bo held to be guilty of theft.—Chief-detective Lewis stated that nothing was known against accused. —The Rev. G. F.. Morton stated that accused had quite a good home, clean, and tidy. He was married and there were two young children. He did not drink to excess, so far as could be ascertained.—Accused was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence at any time within three months, on condition that the expenses (10s) were paid within 4S hours.

Competition Amongst Expressmen.—A, S. Buddicom was charged with having, on August 7, “touted” for an engagement a.e an expressman on the Dunedin Railway Station.—Defendant pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Air Hanlon.—Sub-inspector Fraser stated that the charge was laid under the Hew Zealand Railways by-laws. When the 5.33 p.m. train arrived from the Otago Central Inspector Grieg and Inspector Colthurst had alighted from the train, and as they walked along the platform “touted" for hire.—George Grieg, Traffic Tusspector on the Railways, stated that he had been accosted by defendant, who asked if witness wanted a trap.—To Mr Hanlon; Defendant was not licensed by the Railways Department to go on the station. It .was the City Corporation that licensed expresses. If a passenger signalled to defendant to come on the platform he had a right to do so. — Mr Hanlon: Then ho would be authorised. John Henry Colthnrst, inspector, corrroboratod the evidence given by the last witness. Defendant asked other passengers for custom. When he was asked his name he left, out one of his initials.—To Air Hanlon: Witness told defendant that ho would bo arrested if he did not give a satisfactory answer. He did not take a firm hold of him. When they came back the defendant had disappeared,—To the Sub-inspector: Defendant was asked for his full name.—To the Bench: The men had to aland at the gates.—Mr. Hanlon submitted that on the evidence, no conviction could be entered. The by-law provided that no person, unless duly authorised, could go on to the railway platform unless engaged by a passenger. On the day in question Buddicom went on to the platform, as he had been engaged by a passenger. He contended that it was hardly fair that a man, when authorised to be on the platform, could not pet other work. —The Alagistrato, remarked that some of the railway by-laws were rather lax. —Air Hanlon, continuing, said that passengers generally arranged for a man to be present on the railway station to look after their luggage. People had to carry their own stuff when coining off a train. He submitted that defendant had been engaged to go on the platform. —The Alagistrate said that that was admitted. He would reserve the point raised by Mr Hanlon.