CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20966, 4 March 1930, Page 15

CITY POLICE COURT.

Monday, March 3. j (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.)

INTOXICATED MOTORIST,

Charged with being intoxicated while in charge of a motor car in Rattray street on February 16, and with using a car for which no license had been issued, Frederick Charles Denham, for whom Mr Hanlon appeared, pleaded guilty.—Sub-inspec-tor Cummings stated that on a recent Sunday the accused was observed by a constable trying to start his ear. A small bottle of whisky fell out of the car. When the defendant was brought to the Police Station he was then more than intoxicated; he was drunk. He had been driving round the town in a demonstration car.—Mr Hanlon said that there was nothing he could say in regard to the offences. This was a case in which the accused had been bailed out on his own recognisance cf £SO and had failed to appear. As counsel had previously explained, this had been due to the fact •that he had been more or less intoxicated and had had no money to pay a fine. Finally, when he had come to his senses he had given himself up. The subject of bail might be taken up by the police.— The sub-inspector stated that the question of bail was not before the court because notice had to be given to the accused.— His Worship stated that he thought that the two matters should be dealt with together.—The accused agreed to waive his right to notice, and Sub-inspector Cummings made application to have . the amount of bail estreated.—Mr Hanlon pointed out that the court could estreat any part of the bail. It was not a case, he said, of a man trying to defeat the ends of Justice. The accused had made a stupid blunder and had not been guilty of a criminal act. He had been in custody since giving himself up, and had now awakened to a realisation of the wrong he had done.—The magistrate said that the explanation of the accused’s conduct made by counsel was a reasonable one. The court could not deal lightly with the matter, however, as a privilege had been abused. He would make an order estreating £5. On the charge of being intoxicated while in charge of a motor car the accused would be fined £lO, and would be prohibited from driving for sis months. On the charge of using an unlicensed car the accused was convicted ana discharged. THEFT “OF MONEY.

Robert Ambercrombie Brown, for whom Mr W. L. Moore appeared, was charged with, between October 9 and January 29, stealing sums of money amounting to £240, the property of the Petrous Tile Company, Ltd.—Chalmers Williams Thomson, general manager of the Petrous Tile Company, said that the accused had been engaged about 18 months ago as bookkeeper at £3 10s a week, and in January, 1929, he had been appointed permanently at a wage of £5 a week. In January last he had received a further increase of 10s a week. He had received all payments to the company.—Robert Burgess, auditor to the company, stated that towards the end of January last he had commenced an audit of the books and had discovered a debit of £4 18s ■6d to Mr T. White. Witness found that there was no entry in the cash book, though the' cheque had been paid into.the bank. He spone to the accused, who denied that anything was wrong, but failed to return in the afternoon. Witness subsequently found that there was a shortage of £240. The accused had shown no cleverness and had not tried to cover up his thefts.—Detective Russell said that the accused, who had djsappeared from Dunedin a week previously, had been arrested at Timaru on February 24. Witness read a statement made by the accused, a single man, aged 50j who said that up to August 31 everything was in order. Then he purchased a small car and began to get heavily into debt.- He admitted the theft of the money, most of which he had used on the purchase of a house and expenses in conneotion with the car. The purchase of the house had not been finalised, and he had been able to regain the deposit of £2OO. He had, also given instructions to his solicitor to sell the car and to hand over the money to the Petrous Tile Company.—The accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence, Bail was refused. ■ DRUNKENNESS.

Arthur Webber, who was charged with drunkenness, was fined 40s, in default 48 hours imprisonment. Samuel George Hobcroft, who was making his forty-fourth appearance in court, was charged with drunkenness and with being an idle and disorderly person in that he had insufficient means of support.—The case was adjourned until Friday, to enable the defendant to find work in the country. . Two first offenders were each fined 10s, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. ADMITTED TO PROBATION

John Moffatt Wilson appeared for sentence on two chargee of false pretences, and one of theft, the amount of the defalcations being £44 9s. The accused was represented by Mr Irwin.—The magistrate said that he would take into consideration the favourable report of the probation officer. The accused, however, had had a business training, and must* have known what he was doing. Apparently 4 he had been pressed by his employers to obtain more sales, and had adopted subterfuges. On the charge of theft he would be admitted, to probation for a period of two years.—When the question of restitution was mentioned Mr Irwin stated that the accused’s employers would not r • ,T he insurance companies had raid the odds, and had lost on this occasion.— The magistrate - ordered that restitution should be made up to £25 by such instalments as the probation officer thought fit. On the remaining charges the accused was convicted and discharged. AN ADJOURNED CASE.

Walter Goldie Wright was charged with being found without lawful excuse in an enclosed yard. The case had been adjourned from March of last year.—Subinspector Cummings stated that it had been alleged that the defendant was a peeping ■ tom.” He had gone to Invercargill and in October last had been charged with the same offence. He had been admitted.- to probation for a period of two years.—The defendant, who was represented by Mr Hanlon, was convicted and discharged. MAINTENANCE,

P at F. !c \ Viliam Fraser was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order the arrears being £7O 17s. An application was made for variation of the order. Mr F, D - appeared for the complainant and Mr G. T. Baylee for the defend-ant.-The magistrate stated that he was rot satisfied that the defendant had made every effort to pay, though he had been unfortunate in losing part of his wages Arrears over £25 would be remitted, and the amount of the weekly order would be reduced to fOn the charge of disobedience the defendant would be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as the defendant paid £2 a week off the current order and 5s a week off the arrears , ,-K er i. P ?- nroSe Hensleigh was charged uith disobedience of a maintenance order the arrears to December 30 last being £5 18s. There was also an application for maintenance of the defendant’s son, and the defendant asked for a variation of the order m respect of his wife.-His Worship said that he was unable to make an order in respect of the son. and adjourned the other case sine die.