MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8469, 22 June 1907, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

MASTERTON—FRIDAY. (Before Mr W. P. James, S.M.) C!. J. Morant was charged with having taken from a prohibited reserve at Puruatanga, on April 14th last, a red deer, also with trespassing lin pursuit of red deer. Mr C. A. Pownall, who appeared for the Acclimatisation Society, said a heavy fine was not desired. A fine of £2, with cosrs £3 3s, was imposed. Mr D. K. Logan appeared for the defendant. For having attempted to get on a train whilst it was in motion, J. J. Kennedy, who pleaded guilty by letter was fined 7s, with 12s costs. William Iggulden pleaded guilty to charges of plying for hire within the borough a vehicle not duly licensed, : and of leaving horses attached to an express in Bannister Street unattend ed. A fine of 20s, with 7s costs was imposed on the first charge, and 10s, with 7s costs, on the second. James Arthur Braggins and Vloilet Braggins, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having committed a breach \ of the Infants' Life Protection Act, by keeping a child for a longer period than, three days, without having a holder's license. Mr H. C. Robinson appeared for the defendants.

Sergeant Miller stated that J. A. Braggins called on him, and asked what steps he would be required to take to adopt a child advertised in a Wellington paper. Witness told the defendant that the Magistrate would have to consent to the adoption if the defendant were reported to be a suitable person to adopt a child. Witness then stated that he would report adversely on the matter. Witness had since then ascertained that the defendants had adopted the child, which was said to be three weeks' old. When witness called at defendants' house Mrs Braggins stated that she had answered the advertisement mentioned, and had been visited by a man, who said he was a friend of the advertiser. She and her husband then went to Wellington and the child was handed to Mrs Braggins by a woman in a lavatory on the Thorndon Railway Station. The woman also gave Mrs Braggins £l6 to cover expenses, and said that she did not.wish anyone to see her handing over the child. The_ child was still in defendants' care. Cross-examined by Mr Robinson, witness stated that Braggins had said that his wife was worrying about their own dead child. Witness never mentioned the question of the Infants' Life Protection Act to Braggins when he first spoke about adopting the child. As far as witness knew the child was well cared for, and defendants lived quietly and respect- | ably together. Witness stated that I the requirements of the Act had not been carried out. Mr Robinson stated that the defendants were very anxious to replace their own child which they had lost under sad circumstances some [ time ago. Mrs Braggins had spent £ll 6s in the purchase of clothing, etc., for the child, and Braggins had not received any money. Dr. Cowie stated that the child was brought to him suffering from a cold. It aopeared to be well cared for. James Arthur Braggins stated that he received no part of the money received by his wife when she took the child. Witness was in regular work, and was willing to care for the child. Violet Braggins deposed that she knew nothing of the parentage of the child. She had never before seen the woman who had given her the child. She was anxious to adopt the child. Her husband did not know what money she had received for the child until she reached home. Mr Robinson contended that there was no case against the defendants. He suggested that the case should be held over until the defendants anplied for exemption under section 4 of the Act, which provided for the exemption of certain persons and institutions from its operation when desirable. The Magistrate said he believed that Mrs Braggins was bona fide in her desire to adopt the child, but he could not help but impose a fine on Mrs Braggins, who had contravened the Statute. A fine of £l, with 7s costs, was imposed on Mrs Braggins, and the child was ordered to be committed to the Receiving Home in Wellington. The police were instructed to make diligent enquiries and ascertain who were the parents of the child. The case against ) James Arthur Braggins was dismissed.