CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20330, 11 February 1928, Page 20

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, February 10. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.). TRAFFIC BY-LAW CASES. On charges of being in charge of milightod motor vehicles George Tonkins, Leonard Mason, Patrick Young Wales, Russell Arthur Mnthewson, Ronald McDermid, and Charles Fleming were fined 5s and costs. On a similar charge Ernest Nelson Didham was convicted without a fine. Alexander Harvey Stewart pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to give the, right of way to a vehicle approaching from the right.—Sub-inspector Fahey said that the defendant Collided with the Maryhill tram at the corner of Argylc street and Glen avenue. He was travelling at a reasonable speed, but could not see the line clearly, as it was a bad corner.—The case was dismissed subject to the payment of costs (15s). On a charge of being the unlicensed driver of a motor car, Thomas Morrison was fined 5s and costs. The defendant, who was descibcd as a capable driver, had secured a loan of the car to return from a dance, .Tohn Brunton, for whom Mr J. P. Ward appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of cutting a corner.—Mr Ward stated that the defendant, who was turning from Union street into Clyde street, had been forced to cut the corner to avoid a motor cyclist.—A fine of 10s, with costs, was inflicted. Herbert Bourke pleaded guilty to a charge of being the unlicensed driver of a motor cycle, and with having a pillion rider on his machine on January 24. The defendant wrote stating that the cycle he was driving did not belong to him. He was riding in a back street. His earnings were 15s a week, all of which he handed to his mother.—Bourke was fined 10s and costs (10s) on the first charge and convicted and discharged on the second charge. Arthur Hmer was convicted of pillionriding, and was fined ss, with costs (10s), the charge arising out of the previous case. For driving his car in a manner dangerous to the public John Alexander Stewart Algie was fined 30s and costs (10s). —The offence was said to have taken place on the morning of January 21. For failing to keep to the left side of the street on January 13, Albert Edward Segar was fined 10s and costs (10s). Angus William M’Donald was charged with having no lights on his motor car after dark on January 29, with a similar offence on January 21, and with failing to stop at the signal of a constable on January 21.—The third charge was withdrawn by the police in view of a letter to the court in which the defendant stated that he did not sec the constable’s signal.—The defendant was fined 5s and costs (10s) on each of the remaining charges. MOTOR FIRM PINED. Rhodes Motors, Ltd., was charged with failing to notify the ;hange of ownership of a motor cycle within seven days from September 24.—The defendant firm, which was not represented, was fined 20s, with costs (13s). A CASE DISMISSED. Arthur Bond (Mr A. C. Hanlon) was charged with refusing to move his motor car from a stand at St. Kilda on January 28, when requested to do so by a constable. For the police it was stated that the defendant had stopped his car near the main gates of Forbury Park on a section set aside for engaged taxis. He disregarded instructions to move on.—-Mr Hanlon submitted that the case should be dismissed, as the by-law stated that a motor car driver must move his car to a place indicated by the constable. In the case in question, no indication had been given as to an alternative place on the street. The charge was dismissed. loitering on footpath. There was no appearance of Andrew Reid Paterson, who was charged with loitering on the footpath at the corner of Rattray and Princes street in such a manner as to dispute the use thereof. The evidence of the police was that Hie fendant, who was under the influence of liquor, stood on the footpath for half an hour and refused to move.—The defendant was fined 10s and costs. IDLE AND DISORDERLY. Alexander Robert Lee pleaded guilty to a charge of being an idle and disorderly person.—Sub-inspector Fahey said that tile defendant was just over 20 years of age. He had done no work for five months, and had been living on hi s widowed mother, who could not afford to support him. It seemed that the defendant should be put under some restraint and instructed not to return to his home.—lne Defendant said he had not been able to get work. His mother had been keeping him for about six months. He admitted that he had been before the court on a charge of fighting.—The defendant was placed on probation for. 12 months, the Magistrate stating that he would have the assistance of the probation officer in fin ing work. A BROKEN WINDOW. “ She suspected the people of telling some tales about her,” said Sub-inspector Fahey in emphasising the facts of the case in which Muriel Logan was charged with wilfully breaking a pane of glass valued at £l, the property of Edward M’Millan.— I The defendant went to the home, the sub-inspector continued, and, after knocking at the door, waited until it was opened, and then threw a stone at the window. She was unknown to the people concerned. She had had a few drinks. Since then she had made good the damage.—A fine of 10 s and costs (16s) was inflicted. PAYMENT OF FARE AVOIDED Anthony George, who was charged with travelling in a tram between Dunedin and Wingatui without paying his fare, dal not appear.— Thomas Hancock, a railway employee, and Constable Cooper said that on October 15 last they saw George pained by another man, descend from the 11.45 a.in. race train from Dunedin -o Wingatui. George and his friend went through the subway and made towards tne course. When they saw the witnesses coming they spoke to a motorist. rid, when accosted, they said that they had come to Wingatui in a motor car, and would not pay the fare. Eventually, however, they paid the fare, but gave wront* names and addresses. —Sub-.n-spector Fahey said that the other man would be charged on his return from A'is tralia.—The defendant was fined 40s, and costs (El Is). FRIENDS QUARREL. What Mr E. J. Anderson, the defeid ant’s solicitor, described as a “ postmortem ” on the events of Cup Day resulted in the appearance of John Alexander Shearer on a charge of assaulting James Edward Pope.—A plea of guilty was entered— Sub-inspector Faheysaid that the constable on duty heard the sounds of a quarrel in Maclaggan street, and, upon investigation, he found that the defendant and Pope, who were friends, had come to blows. The defendant struck Pope on the head and caused a flow of blood. Pope was a jockey, and Shearer was also employed at Wingatur. Both had had some drink.—Mr Anders m said that the affair was not one-sided. If the defendant were convicted his employ merit at Wingatui would cease. The whole affair was just a case of friends, muddled by drink, falling out.— I The Magistrate adjourned the case for 12 months. What happened at the end of that time, he stated, would depend on the conduct of the defendant in the men, itime. Probably the case would be du missed.—ln reply to a request that the defendant’s name should be suppressed, the Magistrate said he would not consider the question. It was a matter about which the defendant’s employers should know. A VOLUNTARY CONFESSION. Following his own confession after a lapse of nearly four years, Charles Jamss

Withcy was charged with committing mischief at Weddcrhmn on March- 29, 1925, by damaging th windows and sashes of the schoolhouse to the amount of £24 5s 7d, and with the theft of a case of gin, valued at £5 10s. the property of Messrs Milne, Brcirmer, Ltd.—Detecti e Beer, who appeared for the police, said that because, of the lapse of time the cases had to he treated as indictable. He requested that the theft charge should ho amended in order that the property might he stated as belonging to the Ne v Zealand Government.—James Rodger, Education Board architect, said he received notification of the. windows being broken in the school teacher’s residence. The damage amounted to £24 6s 7d. The advice was received on April 4, 1925. —Alexander M. Rennie, invoice cicrk ’’ ■ Messrs Milne, Bremner, Ltd., gave ;vidence as to consigning the gin to Wedderhurn. He was later notified that only one case had been received.—John Miller, railway goods agent, said ‘hat the case had been missed in transit, and could not bo traced.—Detective Russell said that as a result of a letter confessing to the damage and the theft, he interviewed the accused at Lawrence on February 6, 1928. The accused said that he had forwarded the letter, the reason for this action being that he did not wish anyone else to be wrongfully suspected. “ I am sorry it happened ” was the defendant’s only statement. —He pleaded guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence, on Monday next at 10.30 a.m. He agreed to remain in mstody without application for bail. SEQUEL TO MOTOR DRIVE. The sequel to a Christmas Eve motor spin on the peninsula wAs discussed when Ernest Arthur Earley was charged with being drunk in charge of a car on December 24. The cas© arose out of an accident near the foot of the Highcliff road when the defendant knocked down an elderly woman.—Sub-inspector Fahey represented the police, and Earley, who pleaded not guilty, was defended by Mr G. T. Baylee. Dr Robert Findlay Allen said he was called to the scene of the accident on the evening of December 24. He saw Earley, who spoke volubly, and his breath smelt of alcohol. In the opinion of witness, Earley could have driven a car on a quiet road, but might not have been trustworthy in an emergency. Drink had had some effect on him, but he was not hopelessly drunk. Earley’s face was flushed, but this might have been due to his exertidns in carrying a person up the hill. Constable Meiklejohn said that he was called to the scene of an accident, and found that a woman had been knocked down on th© Highcliff road. Wtiness saw the defendant at the tea rooms, and found him in a sleepy condition. He was under the influence of liquor and admitted having had three long beers. Witness examined the scene of the accident and found that the wheel marks of the car were 15ft from the left-hand side. There were marks of skidding for 3ft. There were three other occupants of the car, two of whom appeared to have had a considerable amount of drink. Witness asked the defendant to walk across the street, and noticed that he staggered slightly while taking one step. In th© opinion of witness, the defendant was not fit to be in charge of a car.—Cross-examined, witness said that the doctor had also stated that the defendant was under the influence of liquor.—Counsel: “ Were you in court? ” —Witness: “No, the sub-inspector told me.”—The Magistrate: “ This is most improper. The witnesses were ordered out of th© court and no information should have been given.”—The Sub-inspector explained that only one word had been spoken. The constable asked if th© doctor had said that the man was under the influence of liquor, and he had _ replied “ Yes.”—Continuing, witness said that the defendant was not sufficiently drunk to warrant his being arrested for drunkenness. He would not have prosecuted an hotel licensee for serving him with another drink. —Constable Gibson said he reached the Anderson’s Bay tram terminus at 7.25 p.m. When interrogated, the defendant said he wished to be taken to th© Central Police Station for examination. He was examined by Dr Ross at about 8 p.m., and admitted having had four or five drinks. Cross-examined,! witness said that the defendant would not have been arrested for drunkenness in ordinary circumstances. —Counsel: “ Oh, then, it depends upon the circumstances? ’’—Witness: “Of course.”— Counsel: “That’s interesting.”—The Magistrate: “It is not only interesting—it is correct.”—ln evidence the defendant said that his party was out for a pleasure jaunt, and during the afternoon he had had four “ shandies.” When coming down the hill towards the tram terminus a woman stepped out to cross the road, but became contused, and got in the road of witness’s car. He swung to teh right but struck her with the mudguard, and after jumping oUt he carried her Into the tea rooms, assisted by two others. She was a big and heavy woman, and witness had to walk up the hll backwards, supporting her shoulders. —William Eckhold said he was a passenger in the car driven by the defendant, and was the owner of it. He did not drive, because he did not hold a license. Witness gave evidence on the lines of the previous witness.—Dr Kenneth Ross said that he examined Earley at about 7.55 o’clock on the night in question. Defendant admitted having had about five drinks, but there was no sign of unsteadiness in his walk, and he answered questions normally. H© was of an emotional nature, and broke down when informed that he would have to appear in court. In the opinion of witness Earley 7 was capable .of driving a car. Cross-examined, witness said he could not be sure that Earley was capable of driving a car at 6.40 p.m. that evening.— The Magistrate said he had grave doubts as to the amount of liquor said to be consumed that day, but in view of the absence of independent evidence the case would be dismissed.