MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 23, 22 October 1907, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. Riddell, S.M.) . POLICE CASES. Five first-olf ending inebriates wore convicted and fined 10s., in default -IS hours' imprisonment, at the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, and two other first offenders wore convicted and discharged. Albert White, charged with having been drunk on "Plimmor's Steps, was fined 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment. John Mackay, for drunkenness in Johnston Street, was also lincu 10s., in default 4S hours' imprisonment. UNLAWFULLY ON PREMISES. - Frederick Lynos, with several aliases, appeared to answer a charge of having been found at night without lawful excuse in a dwelling house in Taranaki Street. SubInspector O'Dopovan'said accused was an incorrigible case. He had been admitted to the Ohiro Home, but did not remain there. Accused informed his Worship that he would be very thankful to go to the Home. Ho was getting an old man now, and would welcome a place in the refuge. Sentence was deferred until this morning. Two informations were laid against William Cotter, the first- for having been found at night without lawful excuse on the premises of James Edwards in Taranaki Street, and the second for drunkenness. On .the first charge accused was convicted and sentenced to spven clays' imprisonment with hard labour, and on tho second a fine of 10s., in default 48 hours' imprisonment, was imposed, the sentences to bo concurrent. BREACH OF LICENSING ACT. A plea of guilty was entered by. David Alexander Elliott, charged with having been found on licensed' premises during tho currency of a prohibition order. Mr. Neavo, who appeared for defendant, asked for lenient treatment, as accused was honestly desirous of reforming, and appealed to His Worship to enter a.conviction and order accused to como up for sentence when called upon. Accused was a fruit vendor and had a wife and five children. ■' His Worship, in giving his decision, remarked 'that when a prohibition order was issued against a person, that person should know what tho penalty was if tho order was disobeyed. . It was essential that a prohibited person should not outer licensed premises, and should not bo found in possession of liquor. This was not the first offenco of accused, but penalising hiin by monetary penalties had apparently no effect. His Worship was prepared to give accused another, chance. He did not know if it would do any good, but ho would give the. opportunity. Accused would bo convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. If ho came before tho court again ho would not only be penalised for the breach then,com-' nrtted, but also for the present one.. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. - John Hayes, a youth 18 years of age, was chaiged with having used obscene language on a tramcar in Willis Street-on October. 12, and was convicted and fined £3 and costs 95., in dofault seven days' imprisonment. MUSIC ON THE RAILWAYS. John Burns pleaded not guilty to a charge of. having behaved in an offensive manner in a Government railway- carriago on Sopr tomber 25. Evidence was called to' prove that accused, w;ho was a musician, and a crippled friend, had behaved in such a'manner with their "entertainment" in tho carriage, that passengers had made complaints to tho the train. Accused admitted that he had had a few whiskies—an un-, usual thing—and someone had asked him to play "The Boyne Wator" on liis.yiolin, and then refused: to pay for it.. ( -■_■ : His Worship said thoro were times when passengers.wore not particular about hearing music. Apparently defendant had thrust his music upon the .passengers and had annoyed th r ,m. Ho would be convicted and lined 205.; anc costs £1 lis., in default three days' imprisonment. '('■■■ IDLIi AND DISORDERLY CHARGES. Mary Ann Htitcheson, a, married woman, waj convicted and sentenced to ono month's imprisonment;.on an idle and disorderly charge. • A similar charge Andrew' Hutcneson was held over until to-day to en-' abb: enquiries to be made as to whether ac r cused had obtained work, as submitted by his counsel. John Willis, charged with being an idle and disorderly person, with no visible means of support, was described by Sub-Inspector P'Donovan as being in a very dirty condition. Accused had been, sleeping out at night for some time. He was convicted and.sentenced to three months' imprisonment. - A CHINAMAN AND HIS WIFE. William Joseph Gett was charged with having on October 15 assaulted his wife Catherine Gett. Sub-Inspector O'Donovan prosecuted, ami Mr. Dix defended. 'It was stated by the police that Gett, a Chinaman, was married to a white woman, and during a quarrel with his wife, took up a frying-paii and inflicted a wound on the woman's wrist, which had to be attended to by a doctor. ■ Mr: Dix asked that the Charge should--be allowed to',bc withdrawn, as tho parties had no desire-to-go on with it. The police objected to this course, and His Worship, after hearing argument, ordered the case'to procectl.

Catherine Gott, who appeared with her left arm in a sling, deposed, that she lived with her husband, Wm. J. Gott, at.44 Toi.v Street. She and Gott had,a dispute oyer his lunch,- but what had .happened wasNall her fault. Ho was carrying a frying-pan v at the timo of tho dispute, and the pan nocidontly struck her on tho wrist, cutting an artery. Gottjwas a little bit angry at the time, but sho was to blamo as she had provoked him. To Mr. Dix—-Dinner was not ready when her husband came in. The trouble was solely duo to her action. Gett was a good husband,, and slid had no cause whatever to complain of him.. Gladys Morris, a domestic servant living with' Mrs. Gott, stated that when Gott came in,.to lunch, ho had a' few' «;ords with his. wife. He seemed to bo rather cross. ; • Constable Hitchcock stated that he was' called to Gett's house at 1 p.m. on the day of tho quarrel," and found Mrs. Gott, with'one of hoi- wrists severely cut. Ho asked Gett what he had been doing to tho woman, and he,replied that tho woman was no good, and that ho would like to hang for her. Gett was very excited at tho time and difficult to understand. ■ .

His Worship said it would bo impossible to convict on : the ovide'nee. The case would be dismissed. . "It is a suspicious case all the same," concluded His Worship. BREACH OF "THE.FACTORIES ACT." Tho manager .of the American. Laundry pleaded guilty to a chargo of having failed to allow five employees n half-holiday from 1 o'clock on, Saturday, October .5. Inspector Aldridgc said that, when ho visited tho establishment at 1.40 p.m. on the date mentioned in'the information, the girls were at woik, and that, when Miss Hawthorne, anot'or officer of the Department, called at 3 o-clock, one of thorn Iftfu not discontinued her duties, and the others wore just leaving. Defendant informed tho Court that, no work was done after Inspector Aldridgc. called. Tin- girls had, he said, waited on tho premises to have lunch. His Worship convicted dofendalit. and fined liim 205., with costs. ' DOMESTIC INKELICMT. Annie Doughs, wife of William A. Douglas, applied lor a separation order on fcho .ground of persistent cruelty and failure to maintain. The case stood partly heard. Defendant gave evidence that, although his wife had given him provocation on ninny occasions, he had only struck her once," and that was when she used bad language to him. He bad never refused'to maintain his wile, but would not, take her hack. Evidence for the defence was given by Mary A. 'Huddy. Grace Holts-,, n»rt- 'W- Douglas, s'enr. Ilk Worship dismissed the information without costs. Mr. Wcddo appeared for complainant, and Mr. P. W. Jackson for dotendaut. ■.-'■■■'

RESERVED JUDGMENT. Judgment was given by' Mr. Riddoll, 5.M.,, yesterday morning in the ease of the Police v. Mary Ann' and Andrew Hutcheson. The 'information charged defendants with having kept a disorderly house in Forresters Lane. It was proved'that defendants occupied a bouse at the above acldress, rented and paid for by the' female defendant, and that men wore constantly seen visiting the house, at niaht. Defendants stated that' no other woman frequented the house. It was argued on behalf of 'defendants that it had not been proved that any offence had been committed by them on the day named in the information (October 3.) Also, that as no other woman other than i;ho female defendant lived in the house or frequented it for the purpose stated in the information,: the decision, in Singleton' v.'Ellison applied, and defendants could not be convicted.' In that ease, decided in England, a woman occupied a house frequented by men for purposes of prostitution, and no other woman lived in, visited, used or frequented the house for such purposes. It was held that the house was not a'brothel within the meaning of Section 13 sub-section 1, of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which stated that any ncison who kept, managed, acted, or assisted in the management of a brothel should on summary conviction be liable to fine or imprisonment. By. Section 13 of the Indictable Offences Summary Jurisdiction Act, ; I.SD-i, a brothel was defined as "any house, room, set of rooms, or place of any kind, whatever kept for purposes of prostitution," an;'. Section 29 stated that "any person who kept or managed.' acted or assisted in the management of a brothel should on summary conviction be liable - co the penalty provided by the Act." The difference between the law in England and Now. Zealand was that in Lngland there was nonstatutory definition of brothel, but both Stephens's definition of a common bawdy house and the New Zealand statutory definition of brothel, which were practically the same, included "any house kept for purposes of prostitution." The facts in the, case of Singleton v. Ellison and the present one, said His Worship, were almost identical, and as the term "brothel' 1 was there interpreted not to apply to a ease where one woman kept a house'visited by men for purposes of prostitution, it seemed to him, though not without some doubt, that that decision.was binding until our statutory definition had been clearly applied to such cases. Without that, decision l lie'should have considered it wide enough to cover the offence; with, which -the; defendants wore charged. The informations would be dismissed. .:'.-'.

. MAINTENANCE CASES. Arthur. Hardy, for having failed to.support lis wifo and two children,.was ordered to "pay los. p;>r week, and £l. Is. cost's, on the- first inform:-.;on, and ss. per weok towards the maintenance of each of bis • two children. Mr. Toogood appeared for applicant. An application was made by Agnes E. Jennings, under Section 7 of the' Destitute Persons Act, asking that Richard Jennings should bo ordered to contribute towards the maintenance, of his grandchild, the child-of his deceased's son's wife. Defendant stated that he was willing to pay half the cost of maintaining the child on" condition' that' the child's mother and" grandparents on the mother's side paid half.' An order .was, made for tho payment of 4s. per week towards the maintenance of the, child, and £1 Is. costs. .Mr. Jackson appeared for claimant, and Mr. Kirkcaldie for defendant. ... ■ . '..:', ■ SEPARATION ORDER: REFUSED.' ; Mary Ann 1 Bell, wife; of Hodgson Bell, applied for a summary separation order. The information'-was .dismissed. .Mr. Barnett appeared for, appliotuit, and'. Mr. Wedde for defendant. . ~. ,