MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Waikato Times, Volume 108, Issue 18164, 31 October 1930, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

SITTING AT OTOROHANGA. BEFORE MR F. W. PLATTS, S.M. Charlotte Nelson was charged with driving a motor vehicle without being the holder of a license. She was convicted and ordered to pay costs. A Double Burial. Charles F. Sass, undertaker, of Otorohanga-, was charged with a breach of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, by burying the body of a child, Athol Jacobs, without having obtained in respect of that deceased person either (a) a certificate of cause of death, signed by a duly registered medical practitioner; or (b) a coroner’s order to bury the body;- or (c) a Registrar’s certificate of registration of the death.

Constable G. H. Fry stated that the child died at the Waikato Hospital and was removed by a Hamilton firm of undertakers acting on behalf of Sass. An inquest was to have been held at, the hospital before the removal of the body. Through a misunderstanding between those concerned with the burial, the child was buried in the Otorohanga Cemetery without the necessary papers being obtained. This necessitated a re-interment for the purposes of the inquest. The child’s parents lived at Otorohanga, and suffered much as a result of the prolonged proceedings and the dual burial. The magistrate stated that it was an unfortunate occurrence, but. lie must hold Sass liable and enter a conviction and order him to pay the court costs. Wandering Cattle. Thomas George was proceeded against by the Otorohanga Town Board for allowing cattle to wander within the township. The magistrate stated he could not enter a conviction under the by-laws, and dismissed the charge. Defended Case Miss McKinnon v. F. J. Irwin. This was a claim for £4 13s 6d for goods supplied to defendant’s wife from the shop of the plaintiff. Defendant stated that his wife did not obtain the goods. They were bought by his mother-in-law when on a shopping expedition with her daughter. His Worship said the case was quite clear to him. Mrs Irwin had bought the costume and other goods—in spite of what she may have told her husband. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs £1 16s. , Maintenance Case. George Bromly was charged with having failed, and intending to fail, to provide his wife, Harriet Maria Bromly, and her three younger children with adequate maintenance. An order for £2 per week was made, being £1 for the wife and 6s 8d for each of three children, with £2 2s costs.