CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25798, 20 March 1945, Page 2

CITY POLICE COURT

Monday, March 19 (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) Accused Remanded Mervyn Allan Edwards (Mr C. H. Stevens), a plumber and welder, aged 21 years, was charged with the unlawful conversion of a motor car valued at £BO, the property of Frederick James Hindle, with being unlawfully on enclosed premises, and with the theft of a torch valued at 3s 6d, the property of F. J. Hindle.— The accused was remanded to March 26. Bail was allowed in self at £SO, the accused to report twice daily to the police. Case Adjourned A charge of theft against Terrance William Fitzpatrick, a bricklayer’s labourer, aged 17, was adjourned for 12 months, on the condition that the accused abstains from drinking and that he make restitution of £2 to R. Powley and Co. within 14 days.—For the police, Chief Detective T. Y. Hall said that the accused, with a companion, had gone to a house from which they had stolen two bottles of brandy. The brandy was part of a quantity of liquor which had been stolen from R, Powley and Co. The accused had been arrested in a state of drunkenness.— Mr E. J. Anderson, who appeared for Fitzpatrick, pleaded unfortunate family circumstances. He also said that the accused had been consorting with, bad company. Committed to Borstal “ He is a young man with no sense of responsibility, and appears to be developing into a tough young criminal,” said Chief Detective Hal], when prosecuting in the case of Clement Bertram Peach, a freezing works hand, aged 20 years, who was charged with theft and breaches of his probation. The accused was associated with Fitzpatrick in the theft of liquor, said the chief detective. He had been before the court on four previous occasions, and was on probatioh following charges of theft at Fairlie and receiving stolen goods at Dunedin.—On behalf of Peach Mr C. H. Stevens said the accused had been subject to no paternal control since the age of 13, and was the victim of circumstances.—The magistrate ordered the accused to be detained in a borstal institution for a period of 12 months, this sentence to be served concurrently with that on the original charges. Charges Dismissed As a result of a plea on technical grounds entered by the defendant's counsel (Mr I. B. Stevenson) two charges brought by the National Service Department (Mr A. J. Haub) against Messrs T. E. Sagar and Co., Ltd., alleging breaches of the Industrial Restriction Order and the Industrial Man-power Regulations, were dismissed without prejudice.—For the department Mr Haub said that on February 26 the defendant company had engaged Miss Irene Anderson, aged 16, without having obtained the consent of the district manpower officer (Mr S. C. Bingham). The department took a serious view of this practice, he said.—Evidence was given by James Longworth, an investigating officer employed by the department, who said he had examined the wages book of the defendant company. When questioned by him, Mr Sagar, who was in charge of the shop, had stated that he was not aware -that the department had to be notified of the employment of girls under 18. Mr Sagar had admitted not having made application to employ Miss Anderson. Witness also noticed that Mrs lona McLaren had terminated her employment at the shop on February 24. The department had received no advice of this either, he said. To Mr Stevenson witness said Mr Sagar had been perfectly Jrank. —Mr Stevenson submitted that the charge should be dismissed. In cases of this nature, he stated, undisputed proof was required, and he maintained that the charge should be dismissed on the grounds that it was not proved that the defendant company was registered as an incorporated company, and was an employer within the meaning of the employment restriction order. It was the popular belief, counsel said, that the National Service Regulations did not extend to people who were not within the classes liable for direction. Employers were, moreover, entitled to help from the department as to tlie correct procedure, said Mr Stevenson, and ho thought the present, proceedings were unjustified.—The magisrate upheld Mr Stevenson’s submission with regard to the company, and dismissed the charge without prejudice.