CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22544, 11 April 1935, Page 17

CITY POLICE COURT

Wednesday, April 10. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) WILFUL EXPOSURE. George Edward Ferguson was charged with wilfully and obscenely exposing his person in a public place.—The accused pleaded guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily.—Detective Sergeant Doyle said that the accused exposed himself to about 12 girls, of from 10 to 12 years of age, and had offered money to one of them. He was perfectly sober at the time. He had admitted being in the place at which the act was alleged to have taken place at the time in question, and admitted speaking to the children, but had no recollection of exposing himself. No previous charges of this nature had been preferred against the accused, but he had a list of other crimes against him. —Mr E. J. Smith, who appeared for the accused, said that his client had been without sleep during most of the previous night owing to the fact that his wife had been taken in the early hours of the morning to a maternity hospital, where she gave birth to a child. The accused went without breakfast and lunch, but had some homebrew, which was in the house at the time. He was a relief worker, but had been doing nothing that day. All that could be said was that in a brief moment of madness, under the influence of mental stress, he committed the offence. He was 'a married man, aged 29, and had two children. For the last six years he had led an honest life.—The magistrate said that cases of this nature were difficult to account for and not easy for the court to deal with. However, the public and young children must be protected. He would take into account what had been said by counsel. The accused would be sentenced to three months’ hard labour. CHARGE OF MISCHIEF.

Eric Colen Cheshire pleaded guilty to committing mischief by wilfully damaging a lamp shade valued at £1 10s, the property of the Mount Cook Tourist Company. —The accused said that he had made a bet with a friend that he could not touch £he globe. He himself tipped it, and it fell down and was smashed. He asked that his name should be suppressed.—The accused, Vvho, the police stated, had never been in trouble before, was convicted and ordered to pay the damage (30s), in default three daya’ imprisonment. The magistrate commented that this was not a case for the suppression of the accused’s name. LICENSING CHARGES. Robert Francis Keith was charged with, being the licensee of licensed premises, he permitted drunkenness in the White House Hotel, Henley, with exposing liquor for sale after hours and with opening the premises for the sale of liquor after hours. —Elsie Elizabeth Keith was charged with supplying liquor to a person already in a state of intoxication, with exposing liquor for sale after hours and with opening licensed premises for the sale of liquor after hours.—ln connection with these charges Ivan Ralston and Adam Bungard were charged with being found on licensed premises after hours. —Mr J. S. Sinclair appeared for all the accused, who pleaded not guilty.—Senior Sergeant Packer said that on March 16 he and Sergeant Boulton visited the hotel in connection with complaints that had been received. On arrival it was found that the licensee had met with an accident some time before and was then in hospital at Invercargill. The premises downstairs showed signs of after-hours trading and drunkenness, but upstairs they were a picture of cleanliness. The excuse made by the licensee’s wife that she did not put the drunken man into a room upstairs because she did not wish to have them disordered was discounted by the fact that another drunken man was lying on a bed upstairs.—Evidence along these lines was given by the senior sergeant, who stated that he found Ralston and Bungard on the premises, the former in an advanced state of intoxication. —Sergeant Boulton said that Mrs Keith had said that Ralston was kept on the premises because he was not in a fit state to drive his car.—Evidence was also given by Constable Southgate.—Mr Sinclair said that there was no evidence to show that there was any foundation for the charges, and some of them should not have been laid. No one had been found, he submitted, to be unlawfully on the premises. Even Ralston, who. it was admitted, had had some liquor, was in the circumstances at that time a guest of Mrs Keith, and Bungard had not had any drink. Instead of being prosecuted for the manner in which she had acted towards Ralston, Mrs Keith should have been complimented by the police, and the charge in respect to supplying him with liquor might fairly be dismissed. The only possible charge on the evidence was that against Ralston, and he suggested that this might be dismissed. — On the. suggestion of the magistrate, the police withdrew the charges against Mrs Keith of exposing liquor and opening the premises.—Mrs Keith in evidence said that Ralston had had no drink after 5.30 p.m., and that Bungard was staying at the hotel that night. Ralston had been kept at the hotel for a few hours at the request of his brother.— Evidence was also given by Robert Henry Hogg, Adam Bungard and Charles Patrick Cull.-—The magistrate said that he was satisfied with the evidence of the two experienced police officers as to Ralston being in a drunken condition. The evidence of Mrs Keith and the other witnesses for the defence, however, left the question of how Ralston came to be in that condition something of a mystery. Still, the charge of permitting drunkenness had been established. The licensee was at that time absent from the hotel, and his wife was then in charge, but he wa responsible through her, Regarding the further charges of exposing liquor and opening the premises, there was the evidence of the police that a man was at the door, apparently on guard, and when they went inside they found the bar lit and mep in there. The inference was irresistible that as the officers were in plain clothes, had they not disclosed their identity, they would have been supplied with liquor. On the charge of exposing liquor for sale there would also be a conviction. That charge covered the third charge of opening the premises for the sale of liquor, which would bo struck out. Bungard and Ralston would be convicted and each fined 20s and costs (12s). The magistrate commented that the hotel was a difficult one to run, and asked for the police view on the way it had been conducted. —Senior SergeantPacker said that the only complaint were regarding drunkenness about the period from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Otherwise the hotel was fairly well run.—The magistrate said that, as the licensee was in hospital at the time, he would not endorse the license, but he must take a serious view of the offences. In connection with the charge of permitting drunkenness, the magistrate said there was just a possibility that the accused got the liquor which led to his state otherwise than on the premises. On the charge of permitting drunkenness the licensee would be convicted and fined £lO, with costs (12s), and on that of exposing liquor for sale he would be fined £5 and costs (12s). The third charge would be struck out and the charge against Mrs Keith dismissed.