POLICE COURT

Southland Times, Issue 22488, 24 January 1935, Page 9

POLICE COURT

YESTERDAY’S LIST

“PEEPING TOM” SENTENCED TO

IMPRISONMENT.

Mr E. C. Lewey (S.M.) presided at the City Police Court yesterday. George William Climo, a single man, aged 24 years, pleaded not guilty to a charge of being unlawfully on premises in King street, North Invercargill, on the night of January 16. He was represented by Mr Gordon Reed. Senior-Sergeant Hewitt, who conducted the prosecution, said that the case was what was known as a “Peeping Tom” case. There had been numerous complaints from North Invercargill residents and the police had difficulty in detecting offenders. In the present case a man named Senior was retiring for the night and after putting out the light pulled up the blind of his bedroom. From it he saw a man creep past the window and look into the window of the bedroom occupied by his mother. He got out of bed and chased the man who jumped the gate and got away but left his bicycle against the fence next door. Later the man came back and looked for his bike, at the time admitting to Senior that he had been on the premises earlier that night. Alexander John Senior, of King street, North Invercargill, said he found accused on his premises on the evening of January 16. He was in bed with the light out and the blind up. He noticed a man creep past the window, and slipping out of bed witness watched the man and saw him look in the window of his mother’s bedroom. He opened the front door and met a man coming around the footpath. In reply to a question “What are you doing here?” the man grunted and ran. Witness lunged at the man and just caught him on the shoulder. He then gave chase. The man jumped the gate and ran across King street into Melbourne street. “I was in my night attire and bare feet,” continued witness “and was unable to follow him far. When I returned I found a bicycle outside the house. I then tried to get in touch with the police and later returned to bed. At about 12 o’clock I had a call at the front door, a man seeking the use of the conveniences. He had his coat and hat off. I assented and directed him to the back of the house.” Witness told the man that he was suspicious of people calling at that hour of the night. He asked the man if he was looking for his bike and he replied that he was. Witness said, “You can have the bike for £5, and he replied “I haven’t got £5.” Witness then took the man into the kitchen and asked him to write his name on a piece of paper. He hesitated and witness said, “Your name is Climo, isn’t it,” and he admitted it. The man also admitted that he had ben on the premises earlier that evening. To Mr Reed: He asked him for the £5 to make sure he wouldn’t get his bl Constable Mulholland, of North Invercargill, said he interviewed the accused after the incident and he said he wanted his bicycle. He made a statement in which he said he had been on the premises and run away when a man chased him. The reason he left his hat and coat at Elies road before, returning to the house was to avoid a repetition of the previous reception he got. - « Continuing his evidence the constable said accused fully admitted that he was on the premises. Senior’s wife was not in good health at the time. George William Climo, the accused, said that on the evening in question he found it necessary to use a convenience and went into Mr Seniors house in King street. When going around the house he noticed two lights in windows and decided to leave the house. When doing so he saw a man coming out of the house, and as he lunged at him, he (accused) ran away. To Senior-Sergeant Hewitt accused said he was a mile and a-quarter from his home and he went to the nearest house at the time. “Isn’t this a bit of a hobby of yours? asked the Senior-Sergeant. “No, it isn’t,” was the reply. “Haven’t you been interviewed by the police before for hanging round premises? About an occurrence in North Invercargill?” . “I had a good explanation for that. “Why did you leave your hat and coat on the road? You were afraid that you might be recognized when you went back for your bike.” “I did everything above board and I had nothing to hide.” This concluded the evidence. His Worship: The court is satisfied that the accused was on the premises in such a manner as to constitute a breach of the Section. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for 30 days with hard labour. Unlicensed Wireless Sets. For having unlicensed radio sets in their possession the following persons were fined: Charles Arthur Clark, 2/6, costs 10/-; Miriam Ferguson (Mr Prain), 2/6, costs 10/-; Robert John Fraser, 20/-, costs 12/-; Ann Louise Metcalfe, 2/6, costs 10/-; Donald Norman Morrison, 2/6, costs 10/-; William Francis O’Neill, 2/6, costs 10/-; Francis Walsh, costs only, 10/-, and Ernest Charles Winter, 2/6, costs 10/-. Leslie Donald Manson pleaded guilty to lighting a fire in the open without a permit, and was ordered to pay costs 10/-. Setting off Gelignite. James Oliver Newton and William Smith were charged with setting off gelignite without reasonable cause and with being unlawfully in possession of gelignite. Newton, who was represented by Mr Reed, pleaded not guilty to both charges, and Smith, for whom Mr A. B. Macalister appeared, pleaded guilty to the first charge. The second was withdrawn. Senior-Sergeant Hewitt said the men had had a fair amount of liquor on the day of the happenings (December 2), and also a quantity of gelignite in their possession. They went to Newton’s house at Waikiwi, where Smith fixed up several plugs and let a couple of them off. “They apparently liked to hear them bang,’ said the Senior-Ser-geant. Th<. two shots were fired in the early hours of the Sunday morning and startled residents of Waikiwi. The worst feature of the case was the fact that some of the plugs had been thrown away and had been picked up by a little child who took them to his mother. A night later there was another plug discharged and some damage done to a brick kiln. They did not link that up with, the present case, however.

Mr Reed said that Newton was a shot-firer in a gang at Duck Creek and had purchased the gelignite in the course of his work and for a lawful purpose. James Oliver Newton, of Waikiwi, said he was engaged as a shot-firer at Duck Creek. On December 2 he purchased gelignite for the purpose of using it in his work. He took the explosives home for the week-end. With two companions he had some beer and they decided to go to an eel pond and fire a shot. Smith made up several charges and took them out of the house. Later he heard a couple of shots down the paddock. Witness did not know where the plugs were and was not present when they had been discharged. The Magistrate said he would give Newton the benefit of the doubt, and dismiss the case against him. In Smith’s

case he commented that no doubt it was just a piece of drunken foolish ness and convicted him and ordered him to pay costs 13/- and witness’s expenses 8/-.