MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 263, 2 August 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

HOTEL THIEF ARRAIGNED

THIRTEEN CHARGES

TWO YEARS' REFORMATIVE DETENTION

Thirteen charges of theft of suit-cases, luggage, overcoats, boots and sUoes and otner personal belongings, of a total value of Jiluo, were preferred against a young man named Ralph David Matthews, before Air, E. Page, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The accused pleaded guilty and admitted that he had stolen tue articles mentioned in tne information from various city hotels between July 8 and the 23rd. , Chief-Detective Botldam, who /prosecuted, said that the accused was a returned soldier and an absentee from tho Otaki Hospital, where he had been receiving medical treatment since his return from the front. He had come to Wellington about three or four weeks ago and had embarked upon a career of crime. The accused had been before the Court several times previously. Evidence was given by Detective-Ser-geant Scott, who said that the accused was arrested in a locksmith's shop, where he had gone to obtain a key witn which to open one of the stolen suit-cases. When arrested he said that he-was glad that he had been oaught, and he subsequently admitted the various thefts and gave further information as to an overcoat which he had stolen and which was not mentioned in ihe charges. He also said that he had stolen a suit-case from a tramoar. The Magistrate entered a conviction on the first charge and sentenced tho accused to not more, than two years' reformative detention. On the other counts Matthews was convicted and discharged.

CHARGES OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY DISMISSED. Upon the conclusion of the case against Matthews, another young man named Phillip Slattery Corliss was charged with having received from Matthews a brief bag valued at <£2 and a trench coat valued at ,£7, knowing the same to have ! been dishonestly obtained. The accused pleaded .not guilty. Chief-Detective Boddam prosecuted and Mr. H..L. O'Leary appeared for the defence. The prisoner Matthews was called as the principal witness, and stated that he had been living with Corliss for some three weeks, and it was during that time that he gave the ovorcoat and suit-case to the accused to sell. He had stolen tho articles, but did not tell Corliss of this. To Mr. O'Leary: Witness told Corliss that he was 6hort of cash and desired Corliss to sell the property. _ Witness was waiting to go on the vaudeville stage. The accused was not aware that the ai tides had been stolen. Detective Torrence said that when interviewed tho accused admitted that he had sold the articles to second-hand dealers on behalf of Matthews. He further stated that he was not aware that the articles had been stolen. Counsel for the accused said that his olient was entitled to be discharged as he could not he oonvicted for receiving property well knowing the same to be stolen. When his client sold the property he thought he was performing an innocent action. His Worship remarked that the accused's action was quite consistent with that of an honest man. Both charges would be dismissed.

MILK DEFICIENT IN FATS. Proceedings were taken by the City Milk Inspector (Mr. Rawlinson) against W. H. Rcid, milk vendor, for selling milk deficient in fats. The defendant pleaded guilty. Mr. J. Ttidhope prosecuted and Mr. H. F. O'Learv defended. Mr. Tudhopo said a sample of defendant's milk was taken during the month of June, and the analysis showed that the milk only contAied 2.50 per cent, of fats instead of the minimum 3.25. Counsel for the defendant said that his client was convicted a fortnight ago for a similar offence, and while tho present charge was. distinct from the other it was not an offence committed since he lad been last 'convicted. The offence arose out of carelessness on the part of a servant of the defendant, who had neglected to use tho plunger or agitator. Eeid had instructed his servant to use the plunger in order to maintain a proper and equal distribution of the fats, but ho had neglected'to do so. The defendant had not deliberately committed the offence. Mr. Tudhope agreed that there was no suggestion that the defendant had deliberately committed an offence. His Worship decided to impose the same penalty as was imposed in the previous conviction, viz., a fine of £2 and costs £1 lis. 6d.

■ FRIENDLY SOCIETY FINED .-£lO. A fine of .£lO was' imposed on the St. Ita's branch of the Hibernian Society, Hawera, the officials of which failed to forward to the Registrar of Friendly Societies a statement showing the income and expenditure for the past year as required by the Friendly Societies Act. Mr. J. Tudhopo prosecuted, and called evidence to show that the last return rendered by the society was made in 1915. Since then the annual returns as required by the Act had not been- received. Counsel read a telegram from the secretary, who said that he was unable to Wellington owing to the restricted railway service

BY-LAW CASES. Oliver Cottrell was fined'ss. on each of two charges of riding a motor-cyclo which did not bear tho registered number. He was also ordered to pay 14s. Court costs. George Cunningham, who drove a motor-wagon without having the number of 6ame attached, was fined 10s., and on a further charge of allowing the number to become''•indistinguishable by being covered with mud he was fined a similar amount. , Walter Brooke Taylor admitted that ho rode a motor-cyclo which did not have its number displayed on the front, and was fined ss. and costs Ts.

OTHER CASES. On the information-of James Hunter, Norman Lawton, of Miramar, was charged with using insulting language towards the complainant. Mr. J. Scott appeared for the complainant and Mr. P. W. .Jackson for the defendant. The trouble aroso during a tram journey from Miramar to Wellington, and tho complainant alleged that the defendants conduct if repeated would tend to piovoko a breach of the peace. His Worship after hearing the evidence decided to dismiss the information, with costs dfil Is. to tho defendant. _ -. A fine of M and costs 7s. was imposed on M. Muir, who was convicted of failing to vender the personal service required of him under- the Defence Act. Two first offenders for insobriety weig fined 10s. each.