CITY POUCH COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21772, 11 October 1932, Page 2

CITY POUCH COURT

Monday, October 10. (Before Mr S. W. Bundle, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender charged with drunkenness was fined 10s, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. Another first offender, who had not paid his cab fare, was fined 32s 6d, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. UNLAWFULLY ON RACECOURSE. Charles Hunter, alias Mitchell, was charged with failing to comply with the terms of a maintenance order and with being unlawfully on the Wingatui racecourse. —Chief Detective Young asked for a remand on the first charge. Hunter, he said, was a person excluded from racecourses by reason of his record.— The accused said that he had had no one to do his betting and had, therefore, gone to the course himself. —“ Looking at your record,” replied the magistrate, “ it would be advisable if you did not do any betting.”—The accused was remanded until Friday on the first charge, and on the second he was fined 40s, in default three days’ imprisonment. THEFT OP SHIP’S CARGO.

Michele Gam pleaded guilty to two charges of stealing cargo from the s.s. Norfolk at Port Chalmers. The charges were that on October 6 the accused stole 21 boxes of matches and articles of clothing valued at £3 Os, the-property of the New Zealand Shipping Company, and that on October 7 he stole a dozen boxes of matches and articles of clothing valued at £1 8s 9d.—Chief Detective young said that the accused was a waterside worker at Port Chalmers and had been engaged on the Norfolk. On October 7he had been discovered by a Customs officer leaving the boat with some articles in his possession. Other articles had been found when his house had been searched later. The amount of cargo that was missing from the boat would not be known for some time. There was no evidence that cases had been broken open, but some appeared to have been damaged owing to heavier cargo being placed above them. The offence was a serious one, as there had been a number of claims with respect to pillaged cargo, and thefts were difficult to detect. The accused was a married man with four children. He had a very bad record, but had had only one previous conviction for theft. There was no evidence against any other person, although an investigation had been made, and the accused hud said that so far as he knew hp was the only person who had stolen from the ship.— The accused was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment on the first charge and two months’ imprisonment on the second, the sentences, to be concurrent/ BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT. Henry Alfred Edmonds, licensee of the Crown Hotel, was charged with selling liquor after hours, and Violet Alexandra Edmonds, his wife, and William Henry Moulin were charged with supplying liquor after hours. —Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for the defendants, who pleaded guilty.—Sub-inspector Cameron said that at about midnight a constable bad seen a taxi pull up at the hotel, from which a party of men and women had emerged. The constable had. detained the two men in the party and they had admitted that they had had liquor. Later a sergeant had interviewed the licensee and his wife, and they had admitted the offences. The position was that the licensee had not been well and had not been present at the time. The people had gone upstairs, and Mrs Edmonds, after first refusing to provide them with drink, had afterwards consented after being persuaded by a man who was well known to the licensee. Later she had handed the keys to the night porter, who had also suppliedthe people with, drink. Though the licensee and Moulin had previously been convicted within' the last two years the licensee had given very little trouble, and the hotel had been.well conducted. From the point of view of the police it was refreshing to find a licensee who was so straightforward.—Mr Sinclair said that it seemed that the licensee had been n little unfortunate in being caught, since it was admitted that the house was run in a capable manner. The wife, it appeared, had conceded to the request of an old friend of her husband. Counsel referred to the frnnknesp of the defendants - and stated that the licensee had not been aware of what had happened until the next day. It was a case which called for a small penalty. Referring to the previous conviction counsel said that on that occasion the night porter had served a man whom he believed to be a guest who was expected from the country that night.—The licensee was fined £3 and costs (3s), Mrs Edmonds was convicted without penalty, and Moulin was fined 40s. \ INTOXICATED MOTORIST. John Wallace Watkins, for whom Mr P, M. Hanan appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of being intoxicated while in charge of a motor car-on the Main South road at Green Island.—Sub-inspec-tor Cameron said that at 6.15 p.m. on October 6 Constable Hamilton had found the accused sitting in an intoxicated condition in his car outside an hotel at Green Island. The constable, after going into the hotel to make inquiries, had heard the accused start the car, apparently with the intention of moving away. Watkins had been more than intoxicated; he had been drunk. He was a married man in poor circumstances and had been before the court on several occasions. He used the car for the purpose of canvassing. The sub-inspector suggested that the accused be prohibited from taking liquor. —Counsel said that the accused had called to see the proprietor on business and had joined some other men. Before he had realised what had happened he had been under the influence of drink. He had endeavoured to communicate with Dunedin by telephone so that he could get his brother-in-law to drive the car. He had five children, and his wife had been seriously ill for some months.—After the accused had voluntarily taken out a prohibition order he was fined £5 and was prohibited from driving for three years. MAINTENANCE.

Application was made by James Clifton Driver for the variation of a maintenance order.—After hearing the evidence the magistrate said that up to the present Driver’s circumstances had -i°t There was evidence, however, that they might alter, and the case would therefore be adjourned sine die. . . William Stewart was proceeded against by his wife on a complaint for separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders on the ground that he was an habitual inebriate. —After hearing the evidence of the complainant the magistrate said that the case seemed to him to be one for a private agreement. It was difficult on the evident to make an order on the ground that the defendant was an habitual inebriate. His Worship adjourned the case until Friday o giv the defendant an opportunity to appear and suggested to Mr R. L. Simpson, who appeared for the complainant, that it might be advisable to call further evidence. _____