CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22268, 22 May 1934, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT

Mokdat, Mat 21. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) PROBATIONER SENTENCED. Alexander Fraser was charged with having failed* to comply with the terms of hi& release on probation, and appeared for sentence on a charge of having, in December, 1933, at Woodside, stolen a cheque for £lO 10s and £3 10b in money, the property of David Henderson. —The probation officer (Mr J. Garbutt) submitted a report on the accused's conduct, after perusing which the magistrate said that probation was obviously utterly useless for a man of the accused's character. The report described him as a drunken waster, and indicated *=that he had made no attempt whatever to carry out the conditions of probation. He would be sentenced to three months' imprisonment on the original charge, and for a breach of his probation would be convicted and discharged. , MAINTENANCE. John Patrick Burke was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order ttnder which he was in arrears to the extent of £37 8s 9d.—He was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended conditional on his paying £3 forthwith and £1 10s weekly until the arrears arc discharged." The adjourned the case in which Adam Gibson Scott was proceeded against by his wife on a claim for separation, maintenance and guardianship orders, was continued.—Mr G. T. Baylee appeared for the complainant, and Mr F. C. Dawson for the defendant.—After further evidence by the parties and a brother of the defendant had been heard, the magistrate said that as the husband and wife were already living apart, the application for separation would be dismissed, and maintenance, with the consent of the defendant, would be fixed at £2 2s per week, the husband to be allowed reasonable access to the children. Maurice James Hurring was proceeded against by his wife on a claim for separation, maintenance, and guardianship orders. —Mr 0. G. Stevens- represented the complainant and Mr R. H. Simpson appeared for the defendant. —Mr Stevens, in outlining his case, said that it was incredible that a man could be so inhuman towards his wife and children as the defendant had been, and so far as he was concerned, they might now be starving or dying.—The complainant, in evidence, said that she married the defendant in 1926, and there were five children. They lived in various places, until, whilst at Allanton, she learned of his association with another woman, and left him. Eventually she went back to him, and on his telling her that he was threatened with imprisonment she took charge of the other woman's- child, of which he was the father. From this stage he consistently neglected her, and finally she was compelled to move with the children to Hindon, where her sister provided a tent for them to live in, as the house was too small to accommodate them. Since Christmas all the money she had received from her husband was £3 12s 6d, the last payment being made in February.—The defendant gave details of his circumstances, and maintained that whenever he had been able to send his wife money he had done so. He denied being the father of the child he had asked his wife to take charge of, and said he had admitted paternity to save publicity. The evidence for the defence was proceeding when the magistrate adjourned the hearing until May 25' to allow the defendant to ascertain if he could obtain employment.