CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19844, 17 July 1926, Page 23

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, July 16. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) THEFT OF LIQUOR. Ivan Murdoch was charged with having, on July 3, stolen a case containing 12 bottles of sherry, of the value of £2 ss, the property of John Richardson. —Mr Baylec appeared for accused, and pleaded guilty on his behalf.—Chief Detective Lewis stated that accused had been discovered with the case of sherry on his shoulder. He bad been accused of stealing the liquor, and had then given it up. The cellar, from whore the case was taken, was under the back of the bar of the hotel.—Mr Baylce suggested treating the offence leniently, and that accused should be released on probation, Accused, he assured, was willing to take out a prohibition order against himself. —The Magistrate decided to remand accused till Tuesday next for sentence, as Mr P. Q. Gumming (the Probation Officer) stated he wished took further into the matter. FALSE PRETENCES. James Johnson was charged with having, on June 8, at Dunedin, attempted to obtain from Arthur Grant Rennie 8s 5d by means of a false pretence. He was further charged with having, on June 7, obtained from Bobt. M'Cormack 10s by means of a false pretence, with intent to defraud, he having represented that he had received an order for advertising from Alfred Emmanuel Borley.—Mr White appeared for accused, who pleaded guilty.—Chief Detective Lewis stated that accused had called upon Rennie and represented that he was an advertising agent. It was found later that he had not obtained the order mentioned. He was already on probation for false pretences at Invercargill. In the second instance he had approached another man, and had asked him to back a bill for him for £6. This man was now liable for th- sum accused had obtained from a money-lender.—Mr White said accused was a married man, and resided with his parents. He had been employed in the Telegraph Department, and had occupied various positions. Since the committal of the offences his conduct had been satisfactory. He had been prohibited, yet, counsel admitted. he had been drinking fairly freely. —Mr Bundle said men like accused did not appreciate the clemency the court extended to them. Accused would be placed on probation for three years; the period to commence from April 22, 1927, when the current term would expire. The Probationary course was given on the condition that accused was prohibited from drinking during the currency of the order. On the second charge accused was discharged. MOTOR BY-LAWS. A case against William Thompson who was charged with driving an unlighted van, was dismissed. ... ... . W. S. Reddell, for driving past a stationary tram, was fined 20s, and costs (7s). Norman Farrell, for using an unregistered motor vehicle, was fined 40s, and costs. NO DRIVERS’ LICENSES. For not being in possession of motor drivers’ licenses, Kingston David Andrew Baxter, William Brinsden, Andrew Coombos, David S. Coults, John Boyd Dunlop, Frederick Elliss, Lance Frapwoll, Harold Halligan, Leonard Harvey, Herbert Hastie, James Sanderson Hastings Robert Renderson, Frederick B. Howell, Charles Albert Morton Legs. Stuart Alexander Moore, Montague William Marriage, William Manson, P. M’Carthy, Robert A. Ridd, John D. Rose, Charles Sonntag, Wilfred Charles Waldron, John Walker, William George Wallace, Percy Wren, Albert Edward Richards were fined 10s, and costs (7s), and Crawford M“Coy was convicted only. For failing to produce their licenses when required to do so by the inspector, A. W. Apps W. J. Gooalet, Albert Hamilton, Matthew N. Johnson, Sinclair P Knox were each ordered to pay costs (7s), and G. A. Sykes was ordered to pay costs (8s). “PERSECUTION” OF MOTORISTS. William L. Shiel (Mr A. G. Neil!) was charged with failing to produce his motor driver's license when required to do so by an inspector.—lnspector M’Nicoll said that the defendant had a license, but it was not in his possession when it was demanded.—Mr Neill said that he had to admit that the defendant was technically guilty, but this was not the class of case that tile by-law aimed at. Defendant was a garage proprietor and was well-known, even to the inspectors. He had felt in his pocket for his wallet when he was stopped, and finding it was not there, he had gone baelt, and while ho was away he found that his license had been in his pocket all the time.—His Worship: After all, you do not want to persecute motor drivers. An obligation is thrown upon them to carry their licenses, but when an inspector knows a motorist carries a license it is rather persecution to ask him to produce it. The case will bo dismissed, SCAFFOLDING REGULATIONS. The Inspector of Scaffolding (Mr Lightfoot) proceeded against A. H. Brown (Mr B S Irwin) on throe charges of commencing work with a fall of over 12ft without notifying the inspector 24 hours beforehand. —Air Irwin said that the defendant had notices to send on, but by an oversight they were not posted. He was building three houses at the time, so it was hardly likely that he would expect to avoid notice from Government officials. —Inspector Lightfoot said that the real point of these cases was to emphasise that the department must know where building is goingon.—The Magistrate: Yes, it is quite a proper provision. It is for the benefit of the workmen and is not a formality.—Defendant was convicted and fined 4-Os, an.d costs, on the first charge and was ordered to pay costs (7s) on the other two charges. J. 'Rosenbrock was fined 40s, and costs, for a similar offence.