CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20450, 3 July 1928, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, July 2. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS., A first offender was fined 20s, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment for being found drunk in Princes street on Saturday. Charles William Chapman was charged with being found drunk in Dowling; sti-eet on June 30, and also with using indecent language.—Mr B. S. Irwin appeared for the accused, and said the man had recently suffered three accidents, and should not take drink. Since the present charge had been brought he had taken out a prohibition order against himself. Counsel asked for the suppression of the accused’s name, but this was refused.—A fine of 40s, and costs, was imposed on the indecent language charge, and on the other the defendant was convicted and discharged. THEFT OF JEWELLERY. Ann Doyle, who was represented by Mr J. Ward, pleaded guilty to two charges of petty theft, the stolen articles in connection with which were a gold wristlet watch, valued at £4 10s, and a cameo brooch, valued at 30s, both the property of Flora Kathleen M‘Ara.—Chief Detective Cameron said that the accused had been boarding with the complainant, and, urged by poverty, she had stolen the brooch on June I£, later taking the watch also. She received 10s from a pawnbroker for the brooch and 8s for the watch. She was a domestic worker, and had just found a new position to go to. He understood that the sum of 18s was due to the pawnbroker.—Mr Ward said the circumstances of the case were very sad, and there was an extenuating circumstance in that the woman was in sore straits as a result of the direst poverty when the offence was committed. She was responsible for a child 12 years of age, and it was more on her account than her own that she had stooped to theft Happily, the child was now in a home. It was to the accused’s credit that the greater proportion of the money obtained from the sale of the stolen goods had been expended on the child and on food. He considered it was a case for release on probation.—The magistrate granted 12 months’ probation on the charge of stealing the watch, and the second charge was withdrawn. The question of restitution was left to the probation officer. CHIMNEY FIRE. John Trengrove, for allowing a chimney in his premises to catch fire, was fined 10s, and costs. MAINTENANCE. Nelson Fryer was proceeded against by the maintenance officer for disobedience of an order ip respect of his wife and child, the arrears on which wei’e £l7 2s.— In_ evidence defendant said he had not paid because he considered £2 10s too much. He was in a position to pay it, but considered it unfair. His wages were £5 5s per week.—Defendant was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, to be released on payment of arrears. David Francis Ferguson, whose arrears amounted to £lB 16s, was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order. He was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended if he pays £lO forthwith and £8 16s off the arrears to date before July 31. ON LICENSED PREMISES. William David Wilson was charged with being found on licensed premises after hours. Charles Knudsen, who was with defendant at the time, was also charged, and the two cases were taken together. Mr W. L. Moore appeared for Knudsen.—Constable O’Callaghan said he saw the two defendants come out of the Bowling Green Hotel. He accosted them in the street and required to know what they had been doing in the hotel. Wilson said he had gone in to arrange for a bed for a mate. Knudsen denied having been on the premises. Wilson was under the influence of drink, but Knudsen assured witness that that was the result of liquor consumed before 6. _ Witness questioned the licensee, who said neither of the defendants had been in the hotel.—Knudsen, in evidence, denied having been in the hotel. He waited for Wilson outside. He told the constable that, but his only reply was, “ That does not matter; give me your name and address.”— Wilson swore that Knudsen was not,in the hotel. —Mr Moore said the constable must have been mistaken about Knudsen, as his client had not set foot on the premises.—The magistrate said that since it was a dark, ditty night and the constable was some distance from the hotel door there was some doubt whether Knudsen was in the hotel. He must, therefore, give him the benefit of the doubt and discharge him. Wilson Would he fined 20s and costs. A SUNDAY MORNING DRINK. Albert Plumbley and Eric Wahrlich were charged with being found on licensed premises after hours, and both were fined 20s and costs. Arising out ot this case charges were laid against the barman and the licensee. Albert William East, the barman, was charged with supplying liquor after hours, being other than the licensee, and Joseph Carter, licensee of the Empire Hotel, was charged with selling liquor after hours and also with exposing liquor for sale. Sub-inspector Fahey represented the police, and Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for Carter, who pleaded not guilty, to the surprise of the sub-inspector, who said Carter had called on him and said the only thing he could do was to plead guilty.—Sergeant Turner gave evidence as to finding two men in the private bar at 10.20 a.tn. on Sunday, June 24. Wahrlich said he was a boarder and had invited Plumbley in for a drink, but the latter’s story had not tallied with the former’s, and Wahrlich said he had lied to save the barman.—Mr Sinclair said his client admitted the facts, but pleaded not guilty.—Sergeant Turner said it was maintained that East was not a barman, but a porter. East, however, had said h© was the bamian, and witness hid seen him serving drinks on several occasions. He found the licensee, who asked East Why he had not carried out instructions, and East replied that the men concerned were boarders as far as he knew. —At this stage Mr Sinclair said Carter had now decided to plead guilty. Continuing, he said hia client was guilty of a technical breach only. He did not think the police would suggest that Carter was directly concerned in the illicit sales. He referred to defendant’s record for the past 16 years, and said a nominal fine should meet the ends of justice.—Subinspector Fahey said the police did not suggest that Carter was personally involved. They had to admit that he kept a very good house.—The magistrate said the licensee was liable vicariously, and, therefore, he should be careful to vest authority in reliable men only. Both Carter and East would be fined 40s and costs. The charge of exposing liquor for sale was withdrawn. A SURPLUS CHARGE. A middle-aged man was charged with attempted indecent assault on a male and also attempted suicide. Chief Detective Cameron appeared for the police, and Mr A. C. Hanlon for the accused.—Constable jenvey gave evidence concerning the finding of the two concerned in a doorway in Dowling street on October 10, 1926. Accused was taken to the Police Station, where he made a statement. Later witness visited accused’s shop With Detective Sneddon and taxed him with giving a false name. Accused said he had not wanted to ruin Ilia business artd disgrace his relatives. Later he was found in hie shop with a wound in his throat and a razor close by.—Constable Chapman gave evidence bh that charge.—The youth concerned in the alleged offence gave evidence, from which it Was clear he was a consenting party.—Mr Hanlon Wanted to know why Constable Jenvey did not arrest the accused at the time, and suggested that he was Set free to gibe the police an opportunity to “third degree” him and get him to commit himself in some admission. They did not arrest him because they could not question him then. — Chief Detective Cameron cited a complaint made three years ago, in which the accused was involved, and quoted several, cases in support of its introduction, which he had made, he Said, to abut the defence of innocent association.—Mr Hanlon objected to the introduction of this evidence as the Cases Were not parallel, and three years was too far to go back. Counsel also submitted that there Was 110 case. The boy gave no evidence of actual indecency, and admitted being a consenting party. The whole affair was Stupid rather than indecent.—Chief Detective Cameron, however, pointed out that consent was no defence in such cases, according to the Crimes Act.—The magistrate decided to defer judgment until Friday oi‘ Monday to allow him to go into the question of the relevance Or otherwise of the evidence tendered by the police. He agreed to the suppression of the accused’s name in the meantime, and Ordered the suppression of the youth’s name. The charge of attempted suicide was withdrawn.