CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22114, 18 November 1933, Page 8

CITY POLICE COURT

Friday, November 17. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Charged with drunkenness, a- first ofleuder was fined 10s, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. UNIFORM NOT RETURNED. Robert Edgar Harvey was charged with failing to return military equipment to the defence authorities.—The prosecution intimated that the value of the articles had now been paid, and the defendant was convicted and ordered to pay court costs (10s). MOTORISTS CHARGED. Robert Henry Anderson pleaded guilty to a charge of permitting an. unlicensed motor truck to be used.—Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said the vehicle in question had been lying in the defendant's backyard for some time. It had not been registered for the current year. It was alleged by the defendant that a prospective buyer had examined the vehicle, and for the purpose of giving it a trial the defendant had allowed the truck to be driven on ,a public road. If an accident had occurred the would have been serious.—The defendant was fined 10s and costs (3s). James Henry Johnson pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving.—The defendant, who was stated to have driven over street intersections at a speed of 45 miles per hour, was fined 30s and costs (12s). On a similar charge James Murray was fined 20s and costa (10s). James Martin Samson, who was represented by Mr B. S. Irwin, pleaded not guilty to a charge of driving a motor car without the prescribed lights. —The defendant, who stated that he was in his own home at the time at which the offence was alleged to have occurred, said he had a feeling that he was being persecuted because he had been concerned with a previous case in which he had given evidence on behalf of the accused. —After Fearing evidence by the defendant and his son, George Gavin Samson, the magistrate dismissed the charge, remarking that the evidence had failed to prove that the defendant had driven the car past the Exchange at the time alleged. For failing to have an efficient silencer fitted to his motor cycle, George Dixon, who, it wa« stated, had created a good deal of noise in the vicinity of the Hospital, was fined 30s and costs (10s). —— Similarly charged, James Gillan, Jack Mackersey, and David W. Strang were each fined 30a and costs (10s). Donald C. Robertson was fined 10s and costs (10s) for driving past a stationary tram car. A CHARGE DISMISSED.

John Stewart Dick pleaded not guilty to the theft of a motor' car valued at £SO, the property of Leslie James Maule. —The accused was represented by Mr C. A. Hamer. —Outlining the charge, Chief Detective Young stated that the complainant, who was manager of a firm in Wellington known as National Publications, Ltd., had employed the accused as a salesman for a trade journal on a commission basis of 33 1-3 per cent, of all subscriptions. He was to be provided withNi car, and' this was duly landed at Lyttelton, to which port the accused’s passage was paid. The accused was advanced a sum or money ou dccount of future commissions, for board and expenses, but he: was definitely given to understand that he must be responsible for the running costs of the car and for his own expenses. The accused worked south as far as Timaru, where trouble with the battery made it necessary for him to'buy a new one. After the battery had been fitted he went on to Dunedin and thence to Cromwell, where he had to meet anothe'r repair bill for £7. He returned to Dunedin, and whilst there he received a telephone message from the complainant to go back to Christchurch. The accused , replied that he had no money, and the complainant thereupon sent him £2. The accused then left for Christchurch by car, but he got only as far as Waikouaiti when the machine broke down again, and he telegraphed to the complainant notifying him to this effect, and returned to Dunedin. The complainant then forwarded a telegram stating: "Finished with you and the car,” and, showing this message as his authority, the accused sold the machine for £l2 to a motor-wrecking firm in. the city. Having done this, he left for Central Otago, where he was arrested. The question now hinged oh' whether the telegram was sufficient authority for the accused to sell the car. The complainant maintained that he had implied no- such authority.—Evidence to this effect was given by the complainant, who explained that the meaning of the telegram he had despatched to the accused. was that he had dispensed with the latter’s services. He did not mean to convey that he ■ had abandoned the car, although he admitted that this construction might have been placed on the message. Witness went on ■to say that after hearing that the car had been sold he telegraphed to the accused requesting him to refund the money he had received for it, but no reply was forthcoming.—The manager of the firm to whom the accused sold the car also gave evidence, and said that in view of the telegram produced by the accused he gathered that the car had been abandoned and that he was quite entitled to buy it. —The accused, in evidence, said that Tuning expenses he took to mean the cost of oil, petrol, and garaging, but not the cost of replacements. When he first took delivery of the car at Lyttelton he formed the impression that it was “ pretty rotten,” and his subsequent experiences with it had confirmed this opinion. He took the complainant’s telegram to mean that the car had been abandoned, and that he could dispose of it as he wished. —To Chief Detective Young: His driving was not responsible for the condition of the car.—To the magistrate, the accused explained that by occupation he was either a navigating officer at sea or an aircraft pilot and instructor. —The magistrate said that the evidence of the complainant disclosed a somewhat peculiar contract. The cost of repairs such as those mentioned during the hearing could hardly be termed running expenses, and if they were to be treated as such this should have been definitely agreed between the parties.—The telegram forwarded by the complainant was certainly ambiguous, and the court considered that the accused had satisfied it that he had a bona fide belief, when he sold the car, that the owner had given up ownership of it. From the evidence tendered by the prosecution, he was unable to find, added his Worship, that the accused had stolen the car, and the charge would, therefore, be dismissed. - BREACH OF PROBATION.

A young woman, publication of whose name was prohibited, was charged with failing to comply with the terms of her release on probation.—Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said the accused had been before the court at Christchurch on December 24 last on a charge of theft. She had been admitted to probation, and after some time she had transferred to Timaru under the probation officer there. Later she had gone back to Christchurch, and then, after reporting for a time to the police, she had failed to continue doing so. For some considerable time she had not reported, and it was learned that she had come to Dunedin, where she was traced by the police.—The case was adjourned sine die, conditional on the defendant undertaking to remain under the charge of the Salvation Army in the menatime. FRACAS IN DANCE HALL. Harold Herbert Hastic was charged with assaulting Alexander Campbell and also with using obscene language in the Early Settlers’ Hall during the progress of a dance.—The accused was represented by Mr B. S. Irwin. —Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said that on the evening of October SO a dance was being conducted in the Early Settlors’ Hall by the accused and his father. About 11.30 p.m. some trouble arose through the action of the accused, who was more or less under the influence of liquor. He accosted a man named Roberts, who said he did not want to have anything to do with the accused. A friend of Roberts’s, named Campbell, came on the scene and spoke to the accused, who used the most filthy language and struck Campbell on the mouth, break, ing his teeth. The police were called, but before they arrived there was some further altercation, and again foul language was used in such a manner that women in the hall could not fail to hear it. Things were looking nasty by the time the police arrived, but they managed to get the accused, Roberts, and Campbell out of the hall. —Evidence along these lines was given by Alexander Campbell, Arthur Leslie Francis Roberts, Thomas William Flannery, and Constables Robertson and Crawford. —Mr Irwin said that the defence would be a total denial that Jhe accused had used tfes iauguagq com-

plained of or that ho bad struck Campbell excepting in self-defence.—The accused, in evidence, said that on the evening in question he had two drinks after leaving work, but subsequent to that he had Ho liquor. So far as he knew, there was no liquor in the hall, as it was not allowed to be brought into the dance. He maintained that it was the witnesses, Roberts and Campbell, who had started the trouble. First Roberts and then Campbell had sworn at him, and the latter had struck at him, whereupon witness retaliated and punched him on the mouth. The assertion that he had sworn at them was absolutely untrue.—At the conclusion of the accused’s evidence, the case was adjourned until Monday.

The Prince of Wales was pulled up sharply by a French policeman on point duty at Biarritz. The royal visitor had. in error, attempted to drive in the wrong direction along a one-way street. When the policeman ordered the Prince to turn round, his Royal Highness, who was himself driving, obediently reversed and continued to the next street much amused. Meanwhile passers-by pointed out, to the surprised constable who It was he had spoken to.