CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21446, 22 September 1931, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT

Monday, September 21. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) INTOXICATED MOTORIST. Francis Todd, for whom Mr C. B. Earrowclough appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of being intoxicated while in charge of a motor car.—Sergeant M’Carthy said that at 7.45 on Saturday night the defendant had collided with an electric light pole near Ravensbourne. A constable had been in the neighbourhood and had found the defendant in the driver’s seat in an intoxicated condition. Ho was a man of good character. —Mr Earrowclough said that the defendanffliad had three beers during the afternoon and a glass of whisky before tea. He had waited at a friend’s house until 7 o’clock and had thought that he was fit to drive. At the time of the mishap he had been blinded by the lights of an oncoming car, and his own car had been forced on to loose gravel. There was a mark on his head which might account for his condition after the mishap.—The defendant was fined £lO, and he was prohibited from driving for 12 months. A GRAVE CHARGE. John Reid, who was represented by Mr C. J. L, White, was charged with, at Balclutha, indecently assaulting a male. —Chief Detective Quarterraain said that it had been arranged that the case should be heard before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., at Dunedin on Friday next. —Mr White asked that the accused’s name should be suppressed until the facts were gone into. —The "magistrate: Is there only one charge?—The chief detective: I think that the request is unreasonable. There will be five charges. I think that if you knew the whole facts you would not suppress the name. —The magistrate; If there is a number of charges I do not suppress the name. —A remand until Friday was granted, bail being fixed at £2OO in the accused’s own recognisance and one surety of £2OO. CONVERSION OF MOTOR CARS. Thomas Walter Ford, for whom Mr White appeared, pleaded guilty to five charges of converting motor cars to his own use, one charge of converting a motor cycle to his own use, the theft of goods valued at 15s, the property of a person unknown, a hot valued at 255, the property of Alexander Gordon Hastie, and a pair of gauntlet gloves, two pipes, and a pair of motoring glasses valued at £2, the property of John Myers Fraser.— Chief Detective Quarterraain said that the defendant would be 19 years of age at the end of the present month. Durin'g the past month he and some other lads, who were juveniles, had converted five motor cars and a motor cycle to their own uso and had gone for joy rides within a few miles of the city,—Ford had also stolen the goods mentioned in the charges, the hat being taken from a hall in the city. The defendant had been in trouble before and had been on probation.—Mr White said that the defendant’s mother was divorced from her husband, and the family had had a hard struggle. The defendant had also been in bad health. His conduct appeared to have been quite satisfactory while he was in work.—The magistrate said that offences of this kind were difficult to detect, and the sentence should be a deterrent. He did not think that this was a case for probation, but the defendant would be remanded until Friday, the probation officer to prepare a report in the meantime. THEFTS IN HIGH STREET. Andrew Trainer was charged with stealing two ladies’ umbrellas valued at 10s, the property of ft person or persons unknown; one pair of kid gloves, a post office savings account book, and 15s in cash, of a total value of £3 10s, the property of Ivy Brown; an alarm clock and an umbrella valued at £2 ss, the property of Gwenoth Garrick. —The accused pleaded guilty.-—Chief Detective Quartermain said that the accused had opened the windows of houses in High street, and had taken articles which were just inside. He had sold the stolen property to Assyrians in Carroll street. He had a formidable list.—The accused was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on the second charge, and was convicted and discharged on the others. DRUNKENNESS. A fiyst offender charged with drunkenness was fined 20s, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. BREACH OF PROHIBITION ORDEB. William Dalziel Keith, who was charged with a breach of a prohibition order, was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months. REMAND GRANTED. In the case in which Joseph Coory appeared on remand on two charges of theft and two charges ot receiving stolen goods a further remand until October 2 was granted on the application of the police.—On the application of Mr White a condition of the previous bail that the accused should report daily to the police was withdrawn. MAINTENANCE. Emmett James Hussey was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order, the arrears to August 17 being £l3 10s. —The magistrate dismissed the information, remitting the arrears, and informing the defendant that he must keep up the payments under the order. Applications were made by William Henry Rumble, William Chirnside, and John Albert Young for the variation of maintenance orders.—ln each case the arrears were remitted. Leslie William Hey was proceeded against by his wife on a complaint for a maintenance order.—An order was made for the payment of 35s a week, together with past maintenance (£11), and costs (£1 11s 6d). Albert Edward Smither, who was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order, was • sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, to be released on payment of the arrears (£8 6s 6d). Frank Manley, for whom Mr E. J. Anderson appeared, was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order.— The defendant applied for the variation of the order.—After hearing the defendant’s evidence the magistrate said that maintenance had recently been fixed at 30s a week. He did not think it proper to vary the order, but the position could be reviewed in six months’ time. The defendant would be sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment, to be released on payment of the arrears. John Henry Madden was proceeded against on an application for a maintenance order in respect of his child.— Maintenance was fixed at 15s a week, and the defendant was ordered to pay past maintenance (£3), and costs (£1 Is).