CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23689, 22 December 1938, Page 7

CITY POLICE COURT

Wednesday, December 21 (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Sending False Telegram Myrtle Ellen Johnson, for whom Mr C. J. L. White appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of causing a telegraph message to be sent on October 17 in the name of Francis Dionisie Johnson without that person's authority.—The accused was a married woman, whose husband owned race horses, Chief Detective Holmes said. He had entered horses for a meeting at Gore, and accepted the weights, but when the acceptances were published on October 18, he found that his horses were not included. Inquiries were made and it was found that the secretary to the Gore Racing Club had received a telegram stating "unavoidable cancel acceptance *' and signed F. Johnson. It was discovered that the telegram had been sent as the result of a telephone instruction to the Mosgiel Post Office. The accused was interviewed and admitted that she had sent the telegram. If her husband could not maintain her, she said, he would not race horses if she cculd help it.—Mr White said that this trouble was due entirely to matrimonial difficulties. The accused had had much trouble in this respect, and three or four weeks before this incident she had left her husband and instituted proceedings for maintenance and guardianship,' and that action was pending at the time of the offence. The accused was distraught, and sent the telegram entirely as an annoyance to her husband. She did not realise that it was breaking any law. The proceedings against her husband were now settled by a separation agreement, and the accused had come from Wellington to face this charge. It could not have been proved against her, Mr White added, if she had not admitted that she had no authority from her husband to send the telegram over his name. The whole business was purely a family affair. Mr J. G. Warrington, who had acted for the accused's husband in the separation negotiations, said there was no desire on his part that this prosecution should be brought. The magistrate said that the circumstances of this case were very exceptional. Apparently, the accused did not realise the significance of her action. There was no real harm done in this instance. The case was adjourned for 12 months.—An application for the suppression of the name was refused Shop-lifting Charges A young married woman, Mary Nash, for whom Mr 0. G. Stevens appeared, pleaded guilty to two charges of shop-lifting, one involving a set of women's underclothing and a cardigan, of a value of £1 7s 6d, and the other five pairs of men's socks and a set of children's underwear, of a value of 18s 2d.—Chief Detective Holmes said that the accused was stopped when she was leaving a city shop and asked to go to the office. She refused, and sat down on a chair, and while sitting there dropped various articles. She admitted theft, and when her home was searched the articles nominated in the other charge were found. The accused had been before the court before on charges of false pretences and shop-lifting. When arrested, she had £lO in her possession. The fact that the accused had £ 10 in her possession would suggest that she was a kleptomaniac, Mr Stevens said. He submitted a report which was made when the accused was previously charged with shop-lift-ing. In the case of the false pretences charge, also, the circumstances were unusual. Counsel suggested that a long term of probation would meet the case.—Shop-lifting was a serious offence, the magistrate said, and if the accused were of normal mentality 1 the offence would have merited a term of imprisonment. Taking into consideration the type of woman she was and the circumstances of the case, it could be dealt with in another way. The accused was fined £2, with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment, on the first charge, and on the second she was admitted to probation for two years, a condition being that she should not visit drapery and allied establishments unless accompanied by a responsible person. Theft of Money John Clutterbuck, a single man, aged 24, for whom Mr C. J. L. White appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of the theft of sums of money, totalling £2 18s Id, the preperty of Eric Edward James.—Chief . Detective Holmes said that from January 1 to June 18 the accused was employed delivering milk for the complainant. Part of his duties was the collection of money, and there was an arrangement by which he bought petrol for his truck and presented a statement each day. He had been before the court before on charges of dishonesty. He was not a lazy man, the chief detective added.—Mr White appealed for probation, and the magistrate said that, despite the accused's record, he would give him a chance to make good in his present employment. Clutterbuck was admitted to probation for two years. A Serious Charge William George Mayes Harpur, aged 33, who was represented by Mr J. G. Warrington, pleaded guilty to a charge of assaulting a child eight years of age, at Chaslands, on December 11.—After the case was presented, Mr Warrington said that the accused was a married man with three children, a good worker, and a good husband and father. On the day of the offence he had had some liquor. The child had not been injured in any way, physically or mentally. Counsel submitted that the accused was entitled to some credit for a certain amount of selfcontrol and for his frankness in making it unnecessary for the child to be brought to court—The incident was an ugly one, the magistrate said, and it was fortunate that no harm was done. Children had to be protected, and the court had to take a serious view of cases such as this. Taking everything into consideration, the case would be met by a sentence of three months' imprisonment with hard labour. Careless Driving Douglas Alfrey Lane, who was represented by Mr E. J. Anderson, pleaded not guilty to a charge of driving without due care and attention.—Sergeant Lean conducted the case for the police and explained that it was the outcome of a collision between the car driven by the defendant and a Government bus. The car had skidded and run straight into ihe bus. which was almost stationary and right over on its correct side of the road.—Mr Anderson said that the defendant was a Public Works engineer and was driving a car issued from and serviced by the defendant's garage. It was fitted with tyres so worn as to be absolutely unsafe.—Evidence was given that the tyres were unsafe

and that at least one had no tread on it at all. Tyres used on the cars of the Government traffic inspectors until they were judged 60 per cent, used had to be taken over by the defendant's garage arid further used, it was said, and Mr Anderson contrasted this state of affairs with the aims of the Safety Week campaign —Evidence was given for the prosecution by Lionel Harris Rathbone and James Mayne Baillie, and for the defence by the defendant and by Maurice Ordish Fairhurst, Joseph Stanley Berghan. and Cecil Charles Winders. —The magistrate said he could not see that the accident was inevitable or due to an emergency for which the driver of the car was not responsible. Certainly the car he was driving should not have been on the road with three tyres in such bad condition, but the driver knew they were unsafe and he knew the conditions on the road In fixing the penalty, he would consider the fact that Lane was driving a departmental car, the magistrate added. The defendant was fined 10s, with costs 16s and witnesses' expenses, 18s 7d.