NAPIER WOMAN FINED £l00

Taranaki Daily News, 8 May 1930, Page 13

NAPIER WOMAN FINED £l00

INTERFERENCE WITH 'PHONE SEQUEL TO BOOKMAKING RAID. THE MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSED By Telegraph.—-Press Association. Napier, Last Night. Judgment was given by Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., this afternoon in the case in which Mona Catherine Yeo was charged with wilfully interfering with the working of telephones in her residence. The magistrate said the house had been raided by the police under a search warrant, and subsequently the defendant’s husband was charged under the Gaming Act. The telephone wires plainly had been interfered with in such a manner that they could be controlled from various parts of the house. The question resolved itself into whether defendant had wilfully interfered with the wires. She must have known her husband’s occupation, and then it became a question whether she allowed the telephones to be interfered with. The magistrate found that she did so and that' the only matter remaining was the question of penalty. Defendant was liable to a fine of £lOO or a year’s imprisonment, He saw no reason why he should not impose the maximum fine, which he did.

At the hearing evidence-was given that Mrs. Yeo was the owner of a house and the lessee of two telephones. An employee of the Post- and Telegraph Department said he had found wires leading' from lead-in wires to two cup hooks in the bathroom. If a piece of metal were placed across the wires at this point the telephones would be put out of order. He had also found that wires had been tapped between insulators and the lightning guard led down through a recess by a chimney and connected with two switches in a cupboard in the kitchen. By anyone operating these switches the phones could be rendered inoperative or normal at will. Evidence was given to the effect that after readjustment of the phones several messages in connection with betting had been received by DetectiveSergeant Fitzgibbon, who also described the wiring system. The detectivesergeant also stated in answer to His Worship that the charge had been brought against Mrs. Yeo because she ■was the owner of the house and lessee of the telephones. The discovery of the interference with the wires was made during a police raid in connection with the book making charge on which "eo was recently heavily fined.

No evidence was given for the defence.