DUNEDIN POLICE COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2902, 27 October 1909, Page 40

DUNEDIN POLICE COURT.

Mondat, October 11. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) A Cingalese in Court. — Charles Kay, a 1 young coloured man, was charged with j being a prohibitel immigrant under section j 14 of the Aliens Restriction Act, and with I landing without passing the test required ; by the act. — Mr Callan appeared for the acj c-used, who pleaded "Not guilty." — Mr Sibbald, who appeared on behalf of the Customs, said that section 14 of the act required that a language test must be passed by any alien desiring to land in the country. The accused had not presented himself for examination. — Mr Callan said that even though it were admitted that accused w.-i* an alien under the act. still no application had been made for him to pass the test, as the act required. The act distinctly said " who when required to do so." The accused was both able and willing 1 to do so. — Mr Sibbald said that it was not for the Customs to keep watch on those landing in the country. It was the duty of the owners of the vessel to see that no prohibited persons landed from the vessel. — Mr Callan eaid that the way the case arose was that a local appeared in ono of the papers saying that a Cingalese was in the Dominion who had not passed the test. The accus2d, who was a native of St. Helena, was angry j at being called a Cirvgak«e, as he rather prided himself on his Kr.gli«h. It =-o rankled in his mind that he went to the police station prepared to pass the test. Tho police did not give him an opportunity, but arrested him on warrant.— Ths Sub-inspec-tor said that tha char^a was not laid by the police. — At his Worship's suggestion, the case was adiourn-ed until after lunch to enable Mr Sibbald to see counsel. — On resuming, Mr J. F. M. Fraser, who appeared for the Customs authorities, said that, with Mr Callan's consent, he would ask that the case be adjourned for a little to enable the man to undeigo the test. — Mr Callan psid that he had no objection to this provided that it be understood that if the man failed to pass the test he still vould not admit that the man could bo dealt with.— Mr Fraser said that in that case there would probably be another information laid. — The case was then adjourned to enable the man to be given the test. — On resuming. Mr Fiaser said that the man had passed the test, and he would advise the Customs not to proceed. — The case was dismissed.— Accused was then clni ged with des->rrin<r from the s s Aparima and pleaded " fhiilty."— Mr White ap-peaj-od for the Union Company, and said that deseriion from a shin by a man of this class was a rather serious offence, as it hid the shipping company open to a fine of £100. However, accused had given himsHf up. although he knew of the penalty. — Mr Callan acked for lenienov. Accused wanted to niako an honest living in this country. — His Worship convicted and discharged accused. MONDVY. OCTOBER 18. (Before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Maintenance.- -William John Newell was charged, on the oomplaiirt of Amelia Newell, his wife, that he had neglected to provide hor with adequate means of maintenance.— Mr Downie Stewart appeared on behalf of complainant, and Mr Hanlon was present on defendant's beihalf. Mr Stewart related the facts, and said that thej had be-en threshed out b-fcro- Ki--Honor Mr Justice Williams in the Supreme Court on the occasion when defendant petitioned for divorce on the ground of desertion, but failed in hi.s suit, his Honor ha vine: hold that tho potition could not 'no iitstpincd. a« th^ wife wa.s jusfifi-xl ut leaving her matiimonial homo. His Honor had remarked that petitioner had horn obsessed b\ groundless suspicions M>Sfowatt further eyplamod that comphinant had niaimairred hersolf for tho pa«t five years at nursing and housekeeping, but she was now getting on in life- and felt unablo to battle against th<? woild. Dofoirdant was a leather merchant, and his business was a fairly lucrative one. — Complainant gave evidence, and said that hor heart i . oubled hor, and that she could uot oarn more than about 10« a week.— Mr Hanlon (instructed by W. C- MacGregor) said that a» hi.s client was not ontitlod to go irrto matters already decided in th.° Supreme Court, tho cas<> simply re-sohed itself into a question of fixing the amount of maintenance to l>o paid by defendant to complainant The defendant said, amonsrst other .staif mo-nts, that his divorce potition was dismissed on I a technical point, that his ivot nrcomo for 102 weeks was £40 3s. that he had no property and no banking account. He consistently referred to his matrimonial affairs ii* the past tense. H^ said h? lost £800 during rh-e dredging- boom. — His Worsh'p «aid that defendant's statement vva3 not at all satisfactory. An order \vm~ made for the payment by defendant of 10s a week, with costs (£1 Is). Disorderly Pa«songer«. — Two young m<?rr, nsi mod Evvon Cameron and Henry Drodgo, ploadod "Not guilty " to behaving in a disorderly manner while travelling in a Stuart street cable car on October 2. — Mr Havvkin.s ajppoaied for tho defendant- 1 . — Thomas Cla.rk.«on conductor in tbo employ of the Durrodin and Kaikorai Tramway Co., said ho took tho 1115 pm. car from tho OH agon on October 2. Both tho defendant* were slightly under the infiu< j neo of liquor and Pat dow n in the after cabin. When tho ca.r reached Smith street they commorrced to wrestle, disturbi:ig rha five other occupants. The car stopped and witness remonsiratcd with the defendants. Later when collecting faros one of tho defendant' said he wa.i wor*- 1 thair an old . Subsequently cna yf them broke one of the windows, a splinter cutting a passsenger in the eheelc.^ — Henry BnrtU-tt, stripman. said tho conduct of tho ciofendants was objectionable to othor pa« seirgcrs. Ho could not pay who broke the window. — Other evidence boim^ civen, E\v>! Cameion. labouror. said ihr-re vva« no wrestling at all. When loavinjr the car ct Kaik<jjvii, he tiipr.ed on the rail and acci-<]-e:rta!;y broke 'ho window. He vva*: Dot (hunk. — Ileniv Drc<lq'e, iiiil! hand, said t^ev had trcroly !u:ggc<l otis another ard had lxron told to k.;oi) quiot. Was iot ('miik Tho ca->e against Dndge was di«mi>~«ed j and Cameron w<i«- ( fiired 40s with ro-^ts (£l 2c). A fortnight' was allowed for pa\ment. I \Vf.dvp:sdat. (October 20. (Befoio Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.} Mur.tenanoe. — Thomas Iledley Simp^orr Fairbm-n was charged on two counts with failing to provide adequate maintenance for his wife and child. — Mr Hanlorr appeared j for complainant and Mr W. D- Stewart (instructed by Mr W. O. MaoOregor) for defendant —Mr Hanlon said complainant ! aaked, £»« ~^'»i'<inii,nrc for Ijerself and child, i

The case had occupied the attention of the court in another form some time ago, when complainant mado application for a summary separation upon the ground cf persistent cruelty. The magistrate (Mr Graham) held that oomplairrant had failed to prove her case on the ground that there was no actual legal cruelty, althoug-h defendant had been guilty of using moot filthy and disgusting- language and had been both in-considerate- and unkind. Co*rplainant then applied for maintenance, as she found it quite impossible to live with her husband On this, defendant offered her a home, but this wa.s only a. way to get out of maintaining her, as he knew his wife eoukl not ~and would not live with him. Ho wanted her to take up her abode in a two-roomed hovel at Sawyers' Bay. Counsel went on to quote some of the language used by defendant to and in the hearing of his wife, and held that it was monstrous that complainant should he asked to accept a home with such a man. — Mr Stewart submitted that although the magistrate in the pre%ious case did nob make an order on the ground that there was no actual legal cruelty, he dismissed th-o case without calling upon defendant at all and did nor. make an order for maintenance. He was quite picpared to go into tho question of «h<vth~r {.he o^F-pr of a home was a bor.a fide one. — Complainant, being sworn, «aid that she was married to defendant in 1907. Immediately after hor marriage defendant •commenced to abuse and ilkreat hsr, although lie never came to actual blows. Witness went on- to describe the miserable life had led with her husband, who exposed her to insults and ridicule. frhe found j it quite impo=*ihl« to livo with him. Defendant had turned her away from his home, and purposed lending her to live in a hut with her child. He also threatened to erect tt vile, insulting noiice outskis the hut. On tho advice of defendant's father witness went to her aunt's place and stayed there some months, du»-ing ' which time she never heard from defendant. She was ill and unable to work. — Defendant stated that h° had a run at Ed<mda!e He was working for anothor man, and earned £1 a weak, with which he procured fencing for his own run. Hs was willing to take his wife down to Eden dale, where she could liv? in a on-'-rcomed cottage j on the run by he'-splf. Witness would live in a tent and would have nothing to do with her. — His Worship made an oicW for 10s per week for the- wife ai.d 5^ for the child, with costs (£2 2s). I