MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2705, 26 February 1916, Page 14

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

UNUSUAL CASE

UNRULY BOY CHAINED UP

A rather unusual case came before Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday morning, when Martin M'Govern,' a waterside .worker, residing in Binhani Street, was charged with in-treating a child, under the age of 14 years, ! in a manner likely to cause the child unnecessary suffering. Tho alleged offence took pluce at the defendant' 6 homo between December IS) and 22 last, the child (defendant's nine-year-old son) having been chained by the ankle to ; a post in the backyard in order to keep him from running away while his father was at work. The boy appeared in ' Court, smartly dressed and looking the picture of health. Inspector Hendrey conducted the prosecution! while Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty.

Inspector Hendrey, in opening the case, said that the defendant had only one child (a boy under 14 years of age). Some time ago the lnd had been before the Magistrate, on application by the father to have him committed to a reformatory institution, but, as tho applicant was not ablo to find sureties, nothing had come of the matter. Tho lad had been troublesome, and had run away from home on several occasions, his father having to obtain the assistance of the police to find him. It was not suggested that the lad was not properly clothed or nourished, and tlio defendant liad probably used tho chain as a means of keeping tho lad off the streets while he (the defendant) was at' work in tho morning and the afternoon. Defendant had been living apart from his wife for some time, and employed a housekeeper, who was not able to control the child whon the father at work. AVilliam Dowdall, a lad 13 years of age, residing with his parents at 5 Binliain Street, deposed to seeing Patrick M'Govern chained to a sort of bench in the ynrd of the defendant's premises. Witness and his brother scaled the fence, severed the chain with an axe, and took the boy M'Govern to the police. To Mr. O'Leary: The boy Patrick M'Govern seemed contented, and was blowing bubbles from a clay pipe. He had no boots or stockings on, but was otherwise well clothed.

Constable Brown gave evidence as to seeing the boy M'Govern' after lie hail been liberated. . There was no mark of violence on the body, an'd the boy appeared to be well clothed and nourished.

Senior-Sergeant Dew declared that tho defendant had frankly made a statement as to his reason for chaining the boy in tho yard. It was a last resort to restrain the boy, who was constantly running away, from homo and causing his father worry. ,

To Mr! O'Leary: Witness knew that various means had been adopted to keep the lad at home'and had proved una vailing. When his clothes had been hidden he had taken his father's clothes and gone out in them. \

Mr. O'Leary submitted that "no case had been made out for the defendant to answer. Tho law allowed the parent to use reasonable force for the purpose of correcting tho child, and there could be no offence, where the parent was ■ not actuated by malice or ill-will towards the child. In this case, it was submitted that not even an error of judgment was disclosed, but that the father was justified in his action, and had adopted the method of\ correction in tho best interests of the boy, who could not be kept at school. Defendant was quite willing to go into the witness-box, if His AVorship desired to hear his evidence.

The Magistrate intimated that he would like to hear the defendant, and, after the latter had given his evidence, the in. formatioi; was dismissed. His "\Ws6ip expressed the opihiou, however, that the method that had been adopted to restrain the boy was not the proper one, though the father was, perhaps, to be sympathised with in having failed with all the other methods that had been tried. Mr. O'Leary suggested that now that the police bad laid the facts before the Court, they mlsht be able to take action to have the boy committed to an indus. trial school as a child not under proper control. This course , was subsequently adopted. FOUND ON PREMISES. Stuart Brown and Thomas Hamilton were charged separately with being unlawfully on licensed premises (the Western Park Hotel) on Sunday, February 6. Brown pleaded guilty, and was fined ss, with costs 7s. Hamilton pleaded jiot guilty, and denied that ho was in the hotel on the date in question. He did not go into the witness-box, but called Brown to give evidence. After the latter had been severely cross-examined by Inspector Hendrey, tho Magistrate recorded a conviction and imposed a fine of 205., with costs lis. George Valentine Mundlo was afterwards charged with being found on tho same premises on the following Sunday, February 13. He pleaded not guilty, but was convicted on the evidence, and lined 35., with costs 7s. THEFT. A young woman named Annie Ball pleaded guilty to the theft of a Post Office Savings Bank, box and ,El 2in money, and also guilty to the theft of articles of clothing valued at ,£1 10s. Inspector Hendrey described the theft as particularly mean and contemptible, the money having been taken from a young couple, who had befriended tho accused. Mr. 0. C. Mazengarb, who appenral for the young woman, asked that she be admitted to probation as she was a first offender and had a child to maintain. Tho Magistrate admitted acuuscd to probation fur 12 months, and ordered her to lepay the JU2 at tile rate of t £l per month. A plea of guilty was entered by a young man named James Dodd, who whs charged with stealing a. mirror. • There were two previous convictions for iheft, but the liiore recent of Ihese was as far back os 1912. A line of 20s. was imposed, the alternative being seven duj'3 1 nuyrisimmenti

ASSAULT. Harry Wilson, charged with assaulting Robert Stephenson on February 5, pleaded guilty under provocation and was represented by Mr. K. K. Kirkcoldie. Tlio Magistrate, after hearing a number of witnesses, did not agree that there was any excuse for the accused, who was convicted and fined .£5, the witnesses' expenses amounting to .£2 25., and tho default being iixed at one month's imprisonment. SUNDAY TRADING. Seven shopkeepers who sold lollies to a polico constablo on a recent Sunday wero convicted of Sunday trading and penalised as follows:—Leonard Cain, fined 10s., with costs 75.; Charles Clifford, lined 10s., with costs is.; Joseph Hopkins Gru,ar, lined 10s., with cost 75.; "William Collins, lined 55., with costs 75., Elizabeth Kidman, fined os., with costs 75.; Morris Lehany, fined 55., with costs 75.; Klizabeth Kind, fined us., with costs 7s. BY-LAWS. Breaches of tlie City by-laws relating to tho lighting of vehicles wero proved | against James Downic Robertson -and Stanley Compton. Each was fined os., with court costs 7s. liobert Henry Davenport, who carried out some plumbing work without a license, was lined 55.,-with costs 7s. MISCELLANEOUS. For entering two different hotels during tho currency of a prohibition order in force against him, Allen M'Phee was fined i! 2, with court costs lis. As an alternative, a term of imprisonment was fixed, but the accused was allowed fourteen days in which to find the money. John M'lunnon did not appear to answer a charge of breach of a prohibition OTder, and he was fined .£2, with court costs 75., in default to undergo seven days' imprisonment. Charles Daniel Hargreaves pleaded guilty to a charge of indecency, and as tho case was not it. serious one a light line (205.) was imposed. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the accused. A charge of cruelly illtraating a horse' was preferred agaist Edward Tonks as the owner of the animal, but nfter hearing the evidence the Magistrate dismissed the information. Mr. R. Kennedy appeared for the prosecutors (S.P.C.A.), while Mr. R-. K. Kirkcaldie appeared for defendant. For supplying liquor to a member of the Expeditionary Forces at Upper Hutt on February 9, Alfred Thompson (Mr. It. Kennedy) was fined 2Cs., with costs 7s. Two youths—Allau Stanton Humphries an William Thomas Newman—admitted having failed to attend drill. . As both were first offenders light fines (55.), were imposed, witli court costs 7s. in each case.

John Alfred Neilson pleaded guilty to a charge of being fouiid drunk and was fined 10s., with the alternative of going to gaol for -4S hours.

Thomas Brown, on a charge of theft from the person was remanded until Wednesday next. Thomas Elliott, for whom Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared, was remanded on bail on a charge of assault causing bodily harm as the principal witness in the case was still in hospital.

Lilian Jukes, charged with insobriety and with using obsce-ie language, was in a very weak condition in the dock, and was remanded for a week for medical treatment. _