CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21600, 22 March 1932, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT

Monday, March 21. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Alexander M'Cullough was fined 20s, in default 48 hours’ imprisonment on a charge of drunkenness. John Murphy, who was similarly charged, was sentenced to 48 hours’ imprisonment. Ernest Douglas was fined 20s, in default 48 hours’ imprisonment, and a first offender was convicted and discharged. BOOKMAKING ALLEGED.

Isaac Henry Curtis, Charles Henry Paul, William M'Queen, Leonard Leslie Little, John Sinclair Clark, Thomas Potter, Thomas Garvey, Thomas Hanley, and John Reid were each charged with carrying on the business or occupation of bookmaking. All were represented by counsel.—Paul, who was charged first, pleaded not guilty, and withheld his election to be by the magistrate or by a jury. When the election was also withheld by Potter’s counsel, the magistrate suggested that a remand should be asked for, to allow counsel an opportunity of consulting with the police. Counsel said that once an election was made, difficulty, if a change of decision were made later, would be experienced. The remaining seven accused were not asked to plead.—Detective Sergeant Nuttall said that the nine accused were arrested on Saturday on warrant under the Gaming Act. He did not wish to say anything further at this stage. In asking for a remand until April 4, he stated that further charges of keeping common gaming houses, laying totalisator odds, and street betting would be preferred. Each man had been released on Saturday on his own recognisance of £loo.—The remand was granted, and bail was allowed on the same terms as previously. INTOXICATED MOTORIST. Thomas Alexander Landreth pleaded not guilty to a charge of being intoxicated while in charge of a motor lorry. —Constable Hansen said that he was in charge of the watch-house on March 12 when the defendant was brought into custody. The defendant then smelt strongly of liquor, and was unsteady on his feet. Witness was not in a lit state to drive a motor car. —To counsel for the defendant: Witness said he did not make any tests of the condition of the accused. He was satisfied that he was intoxicated. —Senior Sergeant Martin said that when the defendant was brought to the station he admitted that he had had five glasses of beer in one hotel, three in another, and two in another. Witness would not say that the defendant was drunk, but he was not fit to drive a car.—Constable Timmins gave evidence regarding a collision between the lorry driven by the defendant and another lorry in Bay View road. Witness spoke to the defendant, and noticed that he was intoxicated. The defendant denied being intoxicated. There was no. doubt regarding his condition. —Constable Palmer also gave evidence regarding the collision and the defendant’s condition. Witness considered that the defendant was intoxicated.—Richard Prebble, a carrier, said that he would not say that the defendant was drunk, but he was very near to it.—Edward George Prebble, son of the previous witness, stated that the defendant was unfit to drive at the time of the accident. —George William Willis, a clothing cutter, said he was in Bay View road at the time of the accident. The defendant was under the influence of liquor.—George Alexander Gordon, a moulder, corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. —Counsel for the defendant said that the evidence for the prosecution was very unsatisfactory, and there. had been several contradictions. The fact that the defendant had voluntarily waited about half an hour for the police to arrive was significant.— The defendant said that he brought milk into town every morning. On March 12 he arrived at the dairy factory about 9 o’clock, and at 10.30, after going to the tip, went to the Oval Hotel, where he had two beers. He detailed his subsequent movements, stating that after lunch he and a man named Nisbct went to the Wharf Hotel. He had two drinks with Nisbet and two more with another man named M'Lennan, He returned to the dairy, leaving there at about 3 o’clock, and as he was driving along Bay View road the accident happened about 30 yards from the Bay View Hotel. Prebble suggested that they should get the police, and the defendant agreed. It was half an hour later that the arrived. He denied that he was under the influence of liquor.—William Patrick Nisbet said that he was with Landreth in the morning when they had two beers at the Oval Hotel. They had no more drink until they went to the Wharf Hotel. Landreth had four fourpenny beers there with him. Ho did not see M'Lonnan, Witness was later in the Bay View Hotel when he heard something about Landreth and came out. Though he had had considerably more liquor than Landreth the police allowed him to take the truck home.—To Subinspector Cameron witness said that he had no license to drive, but he told the police that he was unlicensed. He did not know what liquor Landrqth had after leaving the Wharf Hotel. He was certain that Landreth had four small beers with him at the Wharf Hotel, He would disagree with Landreth if he said that he had two long beers. —John M'Lennan said that Landreth had two medium beers with him at the Wharf Hotel.—Edward MTlroy, Wilbur Barton, Joseph Patrick Kane, and James Robertson, who saw the defendant about the time of the accident, said that they noticed no sign of liquor about him.—His Worship said that after careful consideration of the evidence there was no reasonable doubt in his mind that the defendant at the time of the accident was affected by drink. Ho would, therefore, be convicted. —Counsel asked that the fact that the defendant’s livelihood would be affected should be taken into consideration. —The sub-inspec-tor said that the defendant was a menace on the roads and had been warned about drinking in hotels.—The defendant was fine£ £lO with witnesses’ expenses £1 16s, in default one month’s imprisonment. His license was cancelled, and he was prohibited from driving for 12 months. Leave was granted to apply after the expiration of six months for a revision of the order prohibiting the defendant from driving. MAINTENANCE.

George O'Fee was proceeded against by Ms wife for maintenance.—Maisic Victoria O’Fee, the complainant, stated that her husband had gone away from her about six mouths ago. Since then ho had sent her £ls. His reason for going away was that he could not agree with her. She did not want a separation, but her husband did. To counsel for the defendant, witness admitted that she had threatened to do away with herself if her husband did not come back to her. She had been working as a housekeeper in return for keep for herself and her two children. —The defendant, in evidence, gave an account of his financial position. He stated that, as a result of being arrested, ho had lost his job in Murchison. He was prepared to take charge of the children and could find a suitable home for them. —His Worship said that it was unfortunate that the defendant had been brought to Dunedin from Murchison. The State had been put to an expense of £9. The wife’s position was far from being improved as the man had now lost his employment. Even if he were reinstated ho would have to find the money to got back.—To the magistrate, the defendant said he did not think that there was any likelihood that his wife and he

could come together again. He could find the money to get back to Nelson.—An order for maintenance at the rate of 27s 6d per week was made and costs (£1 Is) were allowed the complainant. Proceedings wore taken against William Carr by his wife for separation, maintenance and guardianship orders. — William Robert Brugh said that he had first known the defendant as a “ bright young man holding down a good position.” He had had dealings with the defendant in recent years and had found him a very different man. He had usually been muzzy with liquor on going to see witness. He hud also nibbled away a fair equity in a property. Witness was convinced that drink had been at the bottom of the trouble. Finally on his wife’s representations and witness’s advice Carr had given his wife the property.—ln reply to counsel witness said that he did not think that Carr’s wife wanted to get hold of the property. He thought that she wanted to save the wreck. Witness did not know that about 1928 the defendant had a serious illness and that he could hardly walk or talk. Witness also did not know that money had been borrowed on the property to pay the expenses occasioned by the illness. —The case was adjourned until April 11.