ORDER RENEWED.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 7, 18 December 1911, Page 5

ORDER RENEWED.

PROHIBITED MAN’S VAIN APPEAL. “A PROHIBITION ADVOCATE.” At tlie Police Court this morning before Messrs J. Masters and C. D. Solo, a man against whom a prohibition order had been made during the past twelve months, was called upon co show cause why such order should not be renewed. Defendant, on being requested to state his case, objected to a “prohibition advocate” being on the Bench but bis objections wore cut short. He said that he did not think it was light. The order had been out against him for twelve months and he had not been given a chance. He had to listen to a childish old man running him down to the utmost. Hero the Bench asked him to give his reasons, and failing tin’s, the fa-ther-in-law of tlie prohibited person gave evidence. Witness said that the reason why the renewal of the order was applied for, was because defendant had failed to provide for his wife and children tlie bare necessities of life. He made a statement, to the effect that defendant’s wife bad boon confined, with no woman or doctor to look after her. During eight months lie had contributed £5 or £6 towards keeping his wife and seven Young children. He attributed In’s neglect of bis family to drink. Defendant said lie wanted to contradict several of the statements, and proceeded to state that the remark iboub In’s wife’s confinement was untrue. He named women who were pro sort, and said he had telephoned a doctor. Just recently he gave his wife £lO.

Questioning from the Bench elicited the fact that his contributions towards the support of his family for eiorht months had not been more than €ll. Defendant : “For tlie last thirteen weeks I’ve boon laid up.”

Mr. Sole: “You’ll got your insurance money, though P” Defendant: “I ’spose I’ll get it.” Tlie order was granted.