CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22356, 1 September 1934, Page 13

CITY POLICE COURT

Frida T, Augcst 31. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) " DRUNKENNESS. A first offender for drunkenness was fined 13s, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. CYCLIST FINED. For riding an unlighted bicycle Charles Henry Beer was fined 5s and costs. SHOPKEEPER CHARGED. Charged with failing to close his shop at not later than 9 p.m. on one day of the week, A. M. Barron was fiued 10s and costa. FIREARM WITHOUT PERMIT. For procuring a firearm without a permit, Reginald Percy King waa convicted without penalty. UNLICENSED WIRELESS. For being in possession of unlicensed wireless sets Thomas George Brooks and Henry Herman Vessel Ostarasch were each fined 15s and costs. CHIMNEY FIRES. For allowing chimneys to catch fire Francis William King, Albert Gooseman, Alexander Lawrenson, and Sarah Alice Thomson were all fined 6s and costs. George Herbert Harris and Charles Henry Brook, similarly charged, were convicted and discharged. MOTORISTS CHARGED. On a charge of dangerous driving Charles Fleming vras fined £2 10s and costs. For driving an unligbted motor cycle Algice Clarence Helm was fined 5s without costs. Lance Close Torrence, for failing to keep to the left of the centre line, was fined 5s and costs (14s). William Henry Beardmore was charged with operating a motor cycle without proper brakes and with being an unlicensed motor driver. He was fined 40s and costs on the first charge and convicted and discharged on the second. Colin Havelock Mowat and Richard Thomson were fined 5s and costs on charges of being unlicensed motor drivers.

Charged with dangerous driving, Leonard MTx. Satterthwaite was fined 20s and costs. FIGHTING IN PUBLIC.

Alfred Albert Rowe pleaded guilty to fighting in a public place.—He wa* represented by Mr A. G. Neill. —Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said that the defendant with some of his relatives, was in the Victoria Hotel at 5.45 p.m., and when in the bar the defendant pushed another man, whose liquor was spilt on his clothes. The man asked Rowe to behave himself, as he was not there to have his beer spilt. A melee followed, and the police arrived. A constable saw Rowe strike the other man, who “ had a pretty rough passage ” for a while. His false teeth were broken. The assault was quite unprovoked, and was brought on as a result of Rowe having too much liquor. —The magistrate: Why was he not charged with assault?—Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said that in connection with assaults in hotels people were loath to come forward and give straightforward evidence, but the constable saw the other offence. —Mr Neill said that it was obvious that Rowe had been fighting in the street with the other man.' The onlookers were fellow-drinkers, and there were no women and children about. Rowe said that the other man pushed him. At Christmas time Rowe was in trouble as a result of an altercation with his brother. —The defendant was fined 40s and costs. FURTHER ADJOURNMENT. The case in which John Gilchrist was charged with obstructing a public place and speaking without a permit was resumed. —For the defendant, Mr R. H. Simpson said that the validity of the bylaw would be attacked, and for that reason he would ask for an adjournment of 14 days.—Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said ho was under the impression that Mr Simpson had closed his case. —Mr Simpson said that Mr F. Jones, M.P., and Mr J. W. Munro, M.P., had not been able to attend the City_ Council meetings recently; and they wished to take the matter further. It was unfortunate that they had had no opportunity of action in the matter. —The magistrate said he wished the ease to be brought on as soon as possible and finally disposed of. —Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said that there had been representations in the direction of having the charge withdrawn. It had been said that unless this were done the validity of the by-law would be challenged. In respect of this the City Council’s solicitor’s advice had been to go on with the case.—An adjournment of one week was granted. The magistrate added that if the by-law was to be challenged it should be done as soon as possible, thus allowing the case to be disposed of. BREACHES OF KINEMATOGRAPH ACT. Tano Fama, manager of _ the State Theatre, was charged with failing_ to observe the censorship regulations in connection with three films shown at his theatre. The films were “Cuckoo in the Nest,” “Orient Express,” and “Falling For You,” the charges being laid in the fact that the notification “ Recommended by the censor for adults ” was not included in the newspaper advertisements in connection with the first two films, and the full notification “ Approved for general exhibition ” was not included in the advertisements for “Falling For You.” The defendant pleaded guilty—Chief Detective Young quoted the regulations of the Act specifically, dealing with public notifications of the class of films being exhibited. The certificates were issued for public information and more particularly as an indication to parents whether films were suitable for children. In connection with “Cuckoo in the Nest,” the reference to adult audiences was omitted, and only the bare announcement “Adults only” was included in the “Orient Express” advertisement. Similarly full notification was not given of universal exhibition.—The magistrate: Are infanta admitted to these “adult” films? —Mr Young; The certificates are issued for the information of the public in order that parents may judge as to the films in question. These prosecutions were instituted by the chief inspector of kinematograph films. There has been considerable difficulty in having the regulations complied with. This case has been brought more as a warning to film exhibitors and we are not pressing for a heavy penalty. The maximum is £5. — The defendant said the omissions from the advertisement were pure inadvertence. He and his company had no intention of breaking the law. He pointed out that even the published notification “ adults only ” conveyed the necessary information to the public. As a matter of fact, the phrase emphasised the nature of the film. He also mentioned that a magistrate in

the north had said that it was no use bringing such charges as these when the law allowed any children under the age of 1G to attend the theatres.—The magistrate; Is this the first case of its kind? —Mr Young; Proceedings have been brought in all the main centres.—The magistrate: There is no prohibition against children attending these films?— Mr Young: No, but the censorship notifications are for the information of parents.—The Unfortunately they may be for the information of infants also.—The magistrate added that it was not for the court to say whether the regulations were advisable or not in certain respects. The position was that they were made and had to be complied with. A fine of 10s and costs would be imposed on one charge and the defendant would be ordered to pay court costs (10s) on each of the other two counts.

YOUNG HOODLUMS CONVICTED. Leslie Richard Bryan, Leonard George MTvor, and John Thomas Vickers, described by the police as the worst type of hoodlums in the city, were charged with disturbing a meeting in the Y.W.C.A. A ’fourth defendant was committed to the Children’s Court. —Mr J. G. Warrington -appeared for Bryan, Mr I. Stevenson for M'lvor, and Mr W. 11. Carson for Vickers. All three defendants pleaded guilty.—Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said the defendants were three of the worst types of hoodlums in the whole of the city. They thought of nothing but going out on mischief bent. For some time the Y.W.C.A. had been pestered by hoodlums who went up u right-of-way and disturbed lectures that were in progress. They knocked at the window and peeped at the girls. As a result of a complaint Constable Mackie came on the scene and saw the defendants in the right-of-way. One was standing near the Public Library to give a signal if anyone was coming, but the constable was too quick for him. The senior sergeant suggested that the three defendants should be separated.—Mr Warrington said the disturbance of the lectures seemed to be a form of larrikinism recognised as a sport by some of the “young bloods” of the city.—The magistrate: Do you refer to young men like these as “young bloods?”—Mr Warrington, said that be did not use the term in any praiseworthy sense. The only leniency he could ask for was on account of his clients’ youth.—Mr Carson said he thought the senior sergeant was hardly correct in saying that Vickers was one of the worst hoodlums in the city.—Senior Sergeant Mac Lean said that he was in a position to prove the statement, and in his estimate he had the support of the Child Welfare officer.—Mr Carson said that in any case the defendant had not been before the court before. Counsel agreed with the suggestion that the three should be separated. Vickers should not be associated with such Counsel asked for the suppression of Vickers’s name. —Mr Stevenson said that the conduct of the defendants could not be excused though it might be extenuated by reason of their youth. He agreed that the defendants should be separated.—The magistrate said that the best thing that could happen to the defendants was for someone to take them and give them a good thrashing. They must realise what nuisances they had made of themselves. The police gave all Of them a very bad name, although their ages ranged only from 17 to 19 years. They might think that they had been very clever in disturbing a meeting. Such behaviour might be_ excusable in boys of seven, eight, or nine years, but when young men were found doing such things it was neither clever nor honourable. The defendants would be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called on within two years, special conditions being that they should not associate with one another nor leave their homes in the evening without the of their parents. Regarding the application for the suppression of Vickers’s name, the magistrate said he had no power to make an order, and in any case he did not think it was a case iu which he should do so. OBSTRUCTING AN INSPECTOR. The London Mantle Manufacturing Company, Ltd., for whom Mr J. N. Thompson appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of obstrucing the inspector of factories inasmuch ns he failed to produce the wages and time book when required 'to do so. —The inspector (Mr N. F. Johnston) said he had paid a previous visit to the factory in connection with a notice posted there, and when he went back on July 18 he was refused access to the time book. The defendant assumed a belligerent attitude, and refused to produce the book—Mr Thompson said the wage book was produced on the inspectors previous visit, and when the second demand was made the manager consider ;d he was being harassed unduly. He required time to get advice concerning how often the book should be produced.—The inspector said that the previous visit had been with respect to a notice posted in the factory.—A fine of 20s and costs was imposed. ALLEGED INTOXICATION.

Alexander M/Laren pleaded not guilty to a charge of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. He was represented by Mr G. T. Baylee.—Senior Sergeant MacLean said that the defendant was found in a drunken condition after an accident to his motor lorry. A collision had occurred, apd the police were called in. it was found that M'Laren was drunk enough, to be locked up. A woman would give evidence that she saw the accused fall out of the lorry on the driver’s side. Tire defendant had come forward subsequently, and had stated that he himself was not driving the vehicle when the crash occurred—After evidence had been heard along the lines of the senior sergeant’s statement, the case was adjourned for one week. CASE ADJOURNED. The case in which William Telford was charged with negligently driving a motor vehicle was adjourned for a week. Mr 0. G. Stevens appeared for the defendant.