MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 209, 29 May 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

CHARGE OP THEFT Mr. F. V. Frasser, S.M., presided over yesterday's sitting of the Magistrates Court. ActingiiSub-Inenector Emerson conducted the police cases. Patrick Lockett, a wharf labourer, «no had been employed on No. 4 hold of s.s. Beimiera- at Wellington, was charged with having stolen 'nine dozen handkerchiefs, the property of .the New Zealand Shipping Company. Mr. H. 1". 0 Leury appeared for the accused. The police case wns that Lockett had come off the Eemuera looking so bulky about his clothing that ;\ policeman uad accosted him. Accused had denied haying any property concealed about him. The policeman had, however, discovered some handkerchiefs concealed beneath Locket t's shirt, and others wrapped about Lockntt's hips. Lockett said fiiat he had bought the goods from someone aboard— he could not say'from whom. One of the police witnesses cross-ex-amined by Mr. O'Leary, said that so far the shipping company had received no claim for missing handkerchiefs; but the Kemuera had not yet finished discharging in New Zealand ports. No evidence was tendered for the defence. ' - s The Magistrate said that the case was obviously one of theft or of receipt of stolen goods. The accused's conduct was so suspicious that it inevitably gave rise ,to that conclusion. The police stuted that the accused had previously been co'nvicted 'of theft. A sentence of one month's imprisonment was passed. • Michael I'luncis M'Hugh, a single man employed as a tuxi-drlver, pleaded guilty to a charge of having stolen an overcoat, the property of Percy Hndky. Jfr. H. F. OTLeary appeared for the accused. Mr. O'Leary said that M'flugh had been guilty of one previous offence, committed in 1917. After that first offenc , ; he had ninde restitution and had enlisted. He had served nt the front and been wounded. Counsel asked His Worship to treat M'Hugh as leniently as possible. The Magistrate observed that he vns willing to let accused's good military record wipe out ,the first offence. He thought that in view'.of the fact that aocused had lost his employment, and -would probably have his license cancelled, a fine of £o would be sufficiently severe. Time wpuld.be allowed in which to pay. '• ' ■ . Herbert Malony'was remanded till June i on charges of beinx idle and disorderly and of resisting* the police. He was granted hnil in the sum of JESO.

James Brown had twice previously been arrested for drunkenness within the past six months, lie appeared yesterday upon a fresh charge ..of drunkenness and two charges, of infringing the conditions of a prohibition order. He was fined £2, and warned that any further lapse from eobriety -would . probably me.artv that he would be sent to Roto Roa. Isltfnd. Henry Greenfield was fined 10s. for insobriety. •..-■*