CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22504, 23 February 1935, Page 7

CITY POLICE COURT

Friday, February 22, Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M. DRUNKENNESS. A first offender, who pleaded guilty to a charce of drunkenness, was fined 12s 6d, in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. T - A CHIMNEY FIRE. For allowing the chimney of his house to catch fire, Henry Marsden was fined 10s and costs (10s). , . ■' , UNLIGHTED BICYCLE. . Horace James Bachop was fined 5s anti costs (10s) for riding a cycle without a light. > UNLICENSED GOODS SERVICE, j Bernard Walter Tremaine and Arthur John "Tremaine were fined 40s and costs (10s) on a charge of operating an unlicensed goods service. , DANGEROUS DRIVING. John Howard Hinton pleaded-not guilty' to a charge of dangerous driving through the borough of Green Island.— .The defendant.held that he had not been driving dangerously, although he- had exceeded the speed limit of 25 miles:per. hour. —The defendant was convicted and .fined 40s with costs (10s).. , A HASTY BLOW. - , Harold Larkins, for whom Mr O. - G. Stevens appeared, pleaded guilty to having assaulted Arthur Shaw. —Senior Sergeant Packer stated that the accused had attended a card tournament at the St. Kilda Town Hall, and during the progress of the tournament .had accused a . man named cheating. He also hit, Shaw on the mouth, breaking some of his teeth.—Mr Stevens explained that Shaw had called Larkins a liar, which caused the defendant to strike him. There was no disturbance after the blow was struck.—A fine of 20s was imposed. * • - CRUELTY i! TO DOG. • Thomas Arlidge pleaded guilty to having cruelly terrified, a dog.- Senior Sergeant Packer stated that, the defendant had, apparently, been troubled by dogs on his farm. He set snares on his property > and with these he caught a dog belonging to a neighbouring fanner named ElliSom " He thereupon' soaked a piece of paper in kerosene,'held it to the dog’s tail,- and, after setting fire to the paper, let the animal go. ‘ When, some •. time ' later; the owner found the dog, it was thoroughly terrified—The defendant denied that he had intended to be cruel to the -dog. He had been troubled by Ellison’s dogs chasing his cattle and worrying his dogs, and he . had. acted as -he ' had done so that he would have proof that Ellison’s dog had been on his property, and so be able to lay a civil action.—The magistrate said; that it was, evident the defendant had allowed his sense of irritation to upset his judgment, and it was a cruel action to treat the dog as he had done. He would, be .fined £2 and costs (12s). : * SHOPLIFTING CHARGE. Mary Hunter (Mr C. L. Calvert) was charged with, stealing a bottle, of scent and a box' of hair remover, valued at 3s 3d, from a ’Dunedin shop.—On the application of Chief Detective Young, who said that some other charges would be preferred, the accused was remanded till February - 26, bail-- being- allowed in the accused’s own recognisance of £SO. INDECENT ACT. Robert Jackson (Mr O. .6. Stevens) pleaded guilty to a charge, of committing . a grossly indecent act at the Ross Creek reservoir reserve and was remanded in custody till the following day to enable the probation officer to submit a report. , ’ « USING A HOSE. Jane M. Gregg was charged with using water through a hose and with %smg '"water for other than domestic purposes.—Mr Haggitt,, who appeared for the defendant, said that this was the v first charge of this nature that had been brought this year.—The defendant said she did not read the newspapers and was not aware that there was a water shortage.—The magistrate said that it was a most selfish and incon-, siderate act at a time like the present.! It seemed scarcely credible, in view ,of the past, conditions, that : a person should be unaware that there was a shortage of water. The defendant would be fined 10s and costs (10s) on tlje second charge, : and a conviction would be entered on the first. LICENSEES CHARGED. Robert (Kirkcaldy Aitehison, licensee of the Bay View Hotel, was charged with opening his premises “after hours f6r the purpose of selling liquor, with exposing liquor for sale after hours, and with selling liquor after hours. With him, his barman, David Archibald Telfour, was charged with having supplied liqudr after hours.—Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for both defendants, who ’ pleaded, not guilty.—Senior ’ Sergeant Packer stated that the , charges arose out of an accident to a man named Brown, who was killed, on December 22 when a, motor car which he was driving collided with a tramcar opposite the Kensington Hotel. Leonard Robert Moulin stated that about 9.30 on the evening of December 22 he, with two friends, had gone to the Bay View Hotel, and, after knocking, were - admitted and were served by Telfour: with three drinks each. The other two nien were Frederick Glover and George William Brown. —To Mr Sinclair witness stated, that during the afternoon he had been drinking in an hotel in Dunedin for about an hour. Before going to the Bay View Hotel that evening, witness and his friends had gone to the Rugby Hotel. The other two went inside, but witness did not, buying a bottle of beer at the door instead.—Frederick H. Glover also gave evidence as to the movements of himself, Moulin, and Brown on the evening the offence was alleged to have been committed.—Sergeant gave evidence of having interviewed both- defendants, who denied having admitted anyone to the hotel after closing hours on the evening in question.—The defendant, Aitehison” his wife, and Telfour gave evidence and confirmed the statements given to Sergeant M'Entee.—The magistrate reserved his decision until the succeeding case had been heard.

In connection with the same circumstances, John Simpson, the licensee of the Rugby Hotel, was charged with selling liquor after hours, with opening licensed premises after hours, and with exposing liquor after hours. William James Gavigan, the barman of the Rugby Hotel, was also charged with supplying liquor after hours.—Leonard Robert Moulin gave evidence to the effect ‘that on the night in question Brown and Glover went to the Rugby Hotel, while he remained in Brown’s car. A few minutes later he went to the door of the hotel and secured a bottle of beer.—To Mr Anderson, witness said he saw Brown and Glover enter the Rugby Hotel. When they came out they all went straight out to the Bay View Hotel.—Frederick Glover said that he and Brown went to the Rugby Hotel at about 8.30 p.m. They rang the bell and were admitted by the licensee. They had two drinks each, the liquor being supplied by the barman. The licensee was also in the bar at the time.—To Mr Anderson, witness said that after leaving the Rugby Hotel they drove to the Queen’s Gardens, and, while there, drank a bottle of beer before proceeding to the Bay View Hotel. He considered he would be quite capable of driving a motor car after having eight or nine drinks. —Sergeant Thom said that he interviewed the defendant Simpson, who denied having supplied Moulin with

liquor on tho night in question, and stated' that to his knowledge he did not supply liquor to Glover and Brown, whom he did not know. The barman also made a statement denying that any of the men concerned had been supplied with liquor at the Rugby Hotel on December 22. —Mr Anderson asked that the charge against Simpson be dismissed, contending, that the evidence of the two witnesses for the prosecution was too vague.—The magistrate held that there was a. case to answer.—Evidence in support of their statements was given by the defendants. —The magistrate said that it was for the prosecution to prove that an. offence had been committed in each of the cases and to satisfy the court by supplying credible evidence to that effect. It did not follow that because the witnesses for the prosecution had been flatly contradicted by the licensees that the evidence of the former was 1 not credible, but .the question of credibility had to be decided on the whole of. the case. The question.was whether the evidence' given by either witness for the prosecution could bo accepted. Moulin had given a fairly connected account, but it differed from that given ■by Glover on several vital points, particularly with regard to what happened after they left the Rugby Hotel. Moulin said they, went straight to the Bay View Hotel, whereas Glover said they, went to Crawford street. One or other of the statements was at fault. If he could not accept the evidence as to the drinking at Crawford street, were the, witnesses sufficiently reliable that be could, accept their evidence regarding the drinking done at other places during the evening? In view of these contradictions and the fact that other details relating to the incidents also differed, the information would be dismissed in each charge, and the charges against Aitcheson and Telfour.would also he dismissed.