CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19816, 15 June 1926, Page 13

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, June 14. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle. S.M.) A DOUBLE OFFENCE. A first offender pleaded guilty to being drunk, and to casting offensive matter in lower High street. —Constable Bevan said the latter offence was committed at 7 p.m. The man was very drunk, and committed the second offence on the footpath- Quue a number of ladies were passing. hardly knew what he was doing.—Sub inspector' o‘HaJloran said he did not think the second offence was committed intention ally.—Mr Bundle said he would like to know whether this offence was the natural result of his condition. Mr Bundle said accused would' be fined 20s. or 24 hours’ imprisonment on the charge of drunkenness; the second charge being dismissed. BREACHES OF VEHICLES REGULA TIONS.

Thomas Drain, John Thorburn, Robert Evans. Henry Sadler and John Archiba.d M'Master were each fined 5s and costs Us), for having improperly lighted oicycles.-h G. Banpe for leaving a motor car in High street for more than 15 minutes without reasonable excuse was fined 5s and costs. — Adam Smith was charged with, while dnv in< T a motor car, passing a stationary tram car. He had apparently passed the tram on the off side-—After evidence had been heard, the Magistrate said it seemed to be a nominal offence. Defendant would ho fined 5s and costa (7s) —William Joseph Goodall was charged with driving a motor car in a negligent manner in King street. —Evidence was given by a constable, who stated in evidence that defendant s car had collided with a tramcar going west. Xhe motor car was wrecked beyond repair, and the driver seemed dazed ny the impac He seemed to have been drinking, but witness would not say he was drunk by any means. He had received a fracture of two ribs. —Mr Bundle said the man must nave been driving carelessly, and fined him t and costs (7s). TENDERING CATTLE. Hugh Urquhart was fhnjd 6s and costs (7s) for allowing cattle to wander at Waverley.—Wm. Hitchcock, for allowing mare and foal to wander at VS averley, " fined 20s and costs (7s). DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. Edward Eron Pearson, James Patrick Flannigan, and James Mills were with being found drunk and be![laying n a disorderly manner on the Dunedin railway station on Saturday last.—lhe two former pleaded guilty and the latter not guilty.—Sub-inspector o‘Halloran appeared to prosecute.—Sergeant M Entee said that in consequence of a complaint he went to the railway platform on Saturday and found the accused behaving in a disorderly manner. Mills belonged to a separate gang from the other two, who were firemen on the steamer Mahana, which was at present at Port Chalmers. The accused had been in custody since Saturday.—Accused were each sentenced to 24 hours’ imprisonment, the men to be placed on board thou' respective steamers on the expiry ot tneir sentence. A SERIES OF CHARGES. A middle-aged man, the publication of whose name was ordered to be suppressed, was charged—(l) with being found without lawful excuse on the premises of Mrs Keith Ramsay (2) with being a rogue and a vagabond, (3) with unlawfully exposing himself in a public place. Accused who was represented by Mr B. S. Irwin, elected to be dealt with summarily.—Mr Irwin said the facts would not be disputed.—Chief Detective Lewis, who prosecuted, said the man had been remanded for medical examination. He had been under Di Evans observation.—Detective Roycroft said he was on duty at Roslyn on June 5 when he saw the accused in Mrs Ramsay a premises. It was then dark. Accused appeared to be wandering aimlessly about. He was attired in an overcoat. The only other article of attire which he had on was a pair of shoes. Accused appeared to be quite normal. Two young women who came along saw accused and took fright. The overcoat ha was wearing was a white one. When arrested accused expressed a wish not to be charged with indecent exposure. Witness found some of his clothes about Mrs Ramsay’s premises. The remainder of defendant’s clothing was found hidden in the Town Belt about threequarters of a mile away.—The Chief Detective said that Mr Irwin had agreed to his stating that in 1918 accused had been charged with the theft of lady s clothing from a croquet club’s premises. He attired himself in these articles of clothing, and when arrested he was wearing them. Since this took place nothing more had been heard of him until the present trouble. Dr Gordon Macdonald said he had known the accused from birth. He knew the whole family history. Accused’s father was an epileptic; so was the accused, and likewise a brother. The man at times was not responsible for his actions. He undertood accused was an excellent tradesman.— The Magistrate said he would adjourn the case for a week to permit of further medical examination. MOTOR CAR ACCIDENT.

Walter Sydney Gardner was charged (1) with recklessly driving a motor car in King Edward street, and (2) with failing to stop his motor car an accident had occurred. —Mr A. G. Neill appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty.—Charles Stanley Harrison said he was on the tramcar which collided with the defendant’s motor car. There was a lorry blocking the defendant’s way. Defendant crossed over in front of the tramcar. Defendant did not stop his motor car, but continued his journey. The motorman applied his brakes, but not in time to avoid an accident. —Alfred Bayne Park stated that he was the motorman in charge of the tramcar involved in the accident. He corroborated the evidence given by the previous witness. Defendant struck the tramcar with his vehicle. Defendant stopped about 30 yards past the scene of the accident. He looked round, and then continued on his journey.—To the Magistrate: A portion of the running board of the tramcar was carried awav. It had cost 18s to repair it. — Arthur Thomas said the tramcar had actually come to a standstill when the collision occurred. —Constable M'Robie gave evidence as to preparing a plan of the scene of the accident. —Mr Neill said that the defendant would say that he was proceeding to the Exhibition when the accident occurred. He did not notice anything wrong with his car after the accident occurred, and consequently he did not think it necessary to stop.—Defendant said it was in trying to avoid a collision with a standing lorry that the accident happened. The tramcar accelerated just as it approached his motor car. He did not report the accident because he did not think there had been a collision. He thought the tramcar had only grazed his motor car. —Mona Brown, who was a passenger in defendant’s car when the accident happened, corroborated the defendant’s evidence. —The Magistrate said there was an absolute variance between the evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses and those of the defendant. He thought the tramcar and the motor car came round the corner at the same time. There was a motor lorry blocking the way. He had no reasonable doubt that when defendant came round the corner he saw the lorry and decided to veer over and assumed that he would get over between the lorry and the tramcar. It seemed to be a case of an error of judgment on the part of the defendant. He did not believe defendant when he stated that he did not know that an accident had occurred. Defendant would be fined 40s, and ordered to pay court costs (10s) and witnesses’ expenses (14s) on the first charge. He would be convicted on the second charge. ASSAULT. Charles Robert Kerr was charged with having, on May 15, assaulted Joseph Pereira.—Joseph Pereira stated in evidence that he was a labourer at Tomahawk, and had a Star run there. On Saturday evening, May 15, he went to get his' newspapers, and was passing Kerr’s place when Kerr rushed out at him and struck him before he had time to defend himself. He must have had somethink hard in his hand which cut him (complainant). Accused used very bad language. A fight ensued, and when he (complainant) was getting the best of it Ids (Kerr’s) wife interfered. Accused had charged him with chasing his children. Complainant gave evidence as to the dangerous results likely to arise from the practices of accused’s children. —Constable Meiklejohn stated that he had seen complainant, who had a bad black eye and a cut an inch below the eye. He interviewed Kerr, who was somewhat under the influence of liquor. He asked Kerr if he had struck Pereira, and he said that he had struck him. He had “sorted him up,” and would do it again. He had said that Pereira interfered with his children. —To defendant: Mrs Kerr had complained about Pereira Interfering with her children. The only complaints about Pereira came from accused’s family.—A boy named Alec. Kerr (sou of accused) slated that the cause of the quarrel was that Per?lrn Interfered with the family. He struck the first blow

and ‘‘came at” accused again. He had a pocket knife In his hand. —Walter Thos. Clark said he had seen the two wrestling, but did not know who began the fight.— Accused, in evidence, said there was a fight and Perlera had a knife in his hand.—To Senior Sergeant Quartermaln; He had gone to Ranfurly, and had had to be brought back. He had been up for threatening behaviour, assault, forgery, and failing to give notice of a change of abode for the Expeditionary Forces; also for posing as a detective. —Mr Bundle said there was evidently bad blood between the two men. He was only dealing with the assault. It was unfortunate the boy had been brought into it. He did not think his evidence was true. Perhaps Pereira’s story was coloured to a certain extent. Kerr would be convicted of assault and required to enter into his own recognisance of £SO to keep the peace towards Pereira. If he did not do so he would be brought up again.—Pereira said he did not claim expenses. MAINTENANCE. Philip Reeder was charged, on adjournment, with the disobedience of a maintenance order, the arrears under which amounted to £l(s. The adjournment had been to enable the Court to ascertain what the man’s earnings were. —After evidence the case was adjourned sine die.

Rose Ann Taylor proceeded against Arthur Henry Taylor for separation and maintenance. —Mr H. S. Irwin appeared for complainant, and Mr \V. D. Taylor for defendant.—Mr Irwin said the parties were married six years ago. Complainant was a widow and went out working. She had saved up a little money and had a home, where she lived alone. Her present husband met her and they married. U«* did not bring anything in. They lived together for a few months, but could not get on together at all. Defendant had taken some of his wife’s belongings from the house and she had had to sue for them. Her health was such that she could not now do work. Taylor was constantly employed at a good wage, and there was no reason why he should not contribute towards his wife’s support. —Complainant said the defendant had frequently ill-treated witness. Ho had on one occasion torn her clothing off her. She eventually had to get a separation from him. She found she could not maintain herself owing to the state of her health. She had to walk the streets on occasions until three o’clock in the morning owing to her husband’s drunken habits. Her husband would be in the house entertaining his drunken friends. The house belonged to witness, and she was now occupying it. She at one time let the house for £2 5s per week. She had held a position as pantrymaid at a city hotel, but had to relinquish it on account of her health; she was at present in charge of a medical man.—Mr W. D. Taylor, who appeared for defendant, said that while Taylor was bound to maintain the complainant the fact that she owned the house she lived in should be taken into consideration. —Defendant, in evidence, denied that he was a chronic drunkard He said his wife frequently came home the worse of liquor. He was earning- £8 I2s per fortnight when working full-time. He was paying 30s per week for board at present. He had never lost a day's work through drink. He denied having drunken parties at his home. He had never illtreated his wife, and had maintained her u,p to the time she left the house.—To Mr Irwin: He had lost a job as motor driver through drunkenness. He was fined £lO on that occasion.—The Magistrate said the parties had been living apart for some time. There were no children of the marriage. An ordqy would be made for the payment of 25s per week on the ground of failure to maintain. Defendant would also be required to pay two guineas solicitors’ fee.

Edward Bryant was charged with disobeying a maintenance order, the arrears to May 12 being £5 3s. Mr Irwin appeared tor the complainant.—Defendant was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, he to be released on payment of arrears. ALLEGED FALSE DECLARATION.

A young man was charged with making a false declaration under the Marriage Act.—Detective Beer stated that accused had just been arrested.—Accused asked for bail, which was fixed at self in £25, and one surety of £25. He would also be required to report daily to the police.—At tdie request of accused the Magistrate ordered the suppression of his name until the facts had been gone into.