POLICE COURT.

Waipa Post, Volume VI, Issue 305, 14 April 1914, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

MONDAY, APRIL 13th before J. G. Elmsly and J. B. Teasdale, J’s.P. DRUNKENNESS.

Tirira Pineahi, otherwise known as Reid, was charged by the

police with drunkenness. An application for the issue of a prohibition order was also made.

Constable Lander stated that he had known accused for several months. He was addicted to drink ; he had been for some time working on the waterworks contract, and his earnings had been invariably spent on liquor. He had been frequently cautioned that unless he refrained from imbibing so much liquor, he must be made to do so.

A prohibition order was issued

to take effect immediately, and a fine of 5s was imposed, it being the first conviction.

ASSAULT.

E. P. Thomas was charged by the police (Constable Lander) that he did assault N. E. Edwards on Saturday night and again on Sunday morning, by striking and kicking him. The accused admitted striking the complainant, but denied having kicked him as alleged. What had been done was acted under great provocation.

Constable Lander, addressing the Bench, said that the accused was a telegraph linesman, and

had been at Te Awamutu abou

twelve months. A few weeks ago his work had taken him to Morrinsville, his wife remaining at

Te Awamutu. Accused had tele-

graphed to her asking that she meet him at Frankton, so that they could both spend Easter at Auckland ; to this he had not a reply, so he journeyed home to ascertain the cause. On his arrival he found his wife intoxicated and his house in general disorder On making enquiries, something he had heard caused him to accuse Edwards of supplying the liquor. He (witness) had separated the two after a slight assault had taken place in Alexandra Street on Saturday night, and he then cautioned Thomas not to take the law into his own hands. The assault had been repeated again on Sunday morning. N. E. Edwards, who appeared, bore evidence of the assault. On being sworn he stated that he was an auctioneer’s assistant employed by Richard Arthur and Co. He did not know defendant or his wife. . He described the assault of Saturday night, following upon accused accusing him of having supplied liquor to his (accused’s) wife. On Sunday morning he was in the mart, and in response to a knock opened the door. The accused forced his way in, and continued to strike him. After a time witness escaped, and ran overtoMrMandeno’s property, with accused close on his heels, and when rnnning back to the mart was struck several blows. Finally he managed to get inside and lock the door. So far as the woman was concerned, witness stated that he first saw her on Wednesday morning, when she was intoxicated. He took pity on her, and took her into the mart. She was there for about 5 or 6 hours, leaving at about midday. That was the first time he had seen her,and he denied having supplied her with any liquor. Mr J. L. Mandeno, sworn, stated that he had heard groans and screams coming from the mart on Sunday morning. The accused had spoken to him earlier in the day. Witness described what he had seen of the scuffle outside the building, and of the pair having scampered across the road and through his property. The complainant was then covered with blood, and had a terrified appearance.

Constable Lander, sworn, gave in evidence his remarks made

earlier in the proceedings, and which had led up to his arresting accused. For the defence several tradespeople were called. These included some who had been interested in a social function held in the mart on Wednesday, for which purpose they had been about the premises earlier in the day. They had seen the room 'in

which the woman had been and described its appearance. It certainly smelt strongly of liquor. Other tradesmen who frequently visited the house with provisions, stated that they had never before seen any sign of liquor, aaid it was a surprise to them to see the woman intoxicated on Wednesday. In summing up the Justices stated that there was no doubt that Edwards had only himself to blame in more ways than one. He should have got the woman proper protection if she was intoxicated when he first saw her, and it was certainly to his discredit to have acted as he had, and in some ways he deserved all he had got. But still, no man could be permitted to take the law into his own hands, and the law was. very clear on this point. In view of the circumstances of the case Thomas would be treated leniently and would be convicted and discharged on the first charge and convicted and fined £l with costs 2ls. on the second charge. Edwards would have to pay his own medical fees apart from those obtained by the police and it was lucky for him that the police had first summoned the doctor as otherwise it would not have been included in the costs Edwards was asked if he would consent to a prohibition order being is.-ued against him to which he replied in the negative.