MAGISTRATE'S COURT
WATCHING A WIFE
HUSBAND GETS INTO TROUBLE
Mr. P. L. HollingSj. S.M., presided over ii short sitting of the Magistrate's Court yesterday morningA Joung woman named Kitty Stewart was charged with the theft of a gold wristlet watch, valued at 0)9, the pro-, p.crly of' Amy M'Parland, daughter of I lie licensee of the Tramway Hotel. Subr Inspector Kmersun, who prosecuted, said that on .Monday afternoon the accused wiiii seen by the : - complainant eomine; down the stairs of the hotel. Tile complainant went to her room and found that her watch., had disappeared, 'the matter .was reported ,to the police, and the accused on returning to tho ,hotel later was found to be wearing the watch; When, questioned slip said it had,been given to her by a man. At this stage the ;accused intimated that she would like to engage counsel, and the further hearing, of tho case was,adjourned until this morning. ■" ■■•,.■ ; -~* ,i ' • John Daniel, who was charged with,the theft of a. mandolin, valued at .£3, the property-of Felix E. Jaines, was remanded until to-day. On Monday William Richards, who w.as very drunk, wandered down-to the Lambton railway station and bumped i.p against several persons oiv the platform and began shouting. A policeman appeared on' tho scene and . arrested him. Yesterday lie was convicted, of disorderly'behaviour when drunk; and' was fined 405.. .in default -18 hours' imprisonment. .. Florence Ward, Susan Hayes, John Sullivan tuid Frederick.. Unwln ,wei-o convicted of. their .second offences of drunkenness and were' each fined 10s. Four first offenders for drunkenness were treated in the usual lenient manner.
FOUND BY NIGHT:. IN ENCLOSED PREMISES:; ' ; ;.,, .... Bernard Brooks, for,;whom 'Miv-T. Neave appeared, -was charged with, being a, rogue and a vagabond,'in that he. was found by night in the: enclosed yard of the premises known as.27Aitken Street, occupied by Mrs. Margaret Burnett. - ■.-. Sub-Inspector 'Emerson conducted tho case for • the -police, and tendered-evi-dence. • ■ .' Margaret Burnett said that she o,cu : pied No. 27 Aitken. Street, and' let rooms.- Sho was in . tho house ..on ■ December 27 until 8. p.-in., when she went with a party for.a motor drive.; There was nobody' left in .the house.. . There was a fire in the grate. On returning at 10 p.m. she discovered that.the chesterfield conch had been on fire. There, were two men in. the house, one of whom was a. boarder. About 10.30 p.m. sho; saw-the defendant leaving the premisesthrough a:side entrance. 'Brooks lad no business on her premises.' Mrs. Brooks had called that afternoon, and was one of the party that went for the motor drive in the evening. . ~ Edwin Edgecombe said that on the' night in question he returned.from work about 10 o'clock and entered the house.He found the place full'of smoke, and on investigating he discovered' the -'hesterficld couch smouldering. • He put out the fire. The couch was about' 7ft. from the grate, and the fires in the grate was nearly out. Another, mail came" in later on; lie was not a boarder, but - waslooking for someone, .who was staying at the place. Witness did not see the defendant until ho was being chased by young Burnett. Alexander Burnett stated that he wont for'a motor drive with liis motlnt, aild a little while after returning.he thought he hard somebody moving near the side of the house. He. made .investigations and saw a man moving towards tho cate. and get out into Aitken Street Witness gave chase and secured the mail in. Molesworth Street. The defendant was the man, and at that lime ho had no boots on. Evidence was also given by Sergeant Sweeney. .'.'.. For tho defence Mr. Neavesaid' there > was a very simple explanation of the, matter. > The evidence concerning tho fire in--the-couch was, unnecessary, for there -\ras-no ;, cihargo' against l the defend-' ant, and the police:had. not suggested; that the defendant-was responsible for that fire. If it were so suggested, then he (counsel)' could prove that tho defendant was in the company .of another man the whole evening. The reason for the defendant's presence on the premises were of a domestic character.. Mr. and Mrs. Brooks had had a disagree-, meiit some days, previously, and Mrs. .Brooks had left home. Brooks was looking for' liis; wife, and was being assisted in his search by Mr. Munns, the .private detective. They, saw tihe taxi return with tho party, of which ' tho two watchers thought that Mrs. Brooks was: one. To make sure Brooks decided'to : approach the.'house and look through tho window, although strongly advised, not to do so by Munns. Brooks removed his boots, and while approaching the window young Burnett came out of the house and Brooks endenvoured to make himself scarce, with'what-'result they know. That was tho explanation 'of the matter. '' • . Evidence was given by Brooks "and' Munns in corroboration Of counsel's statement. 'flic.-Magistrate said ho was not satisfied with the evidence for the defence. The onus was on'the defendant to show that he was on tho premises for a, legitimate purpose, and he had not done so. He had no right to enter the premises of a third person 16 watch his wife. Ho was apparently, there only for a' few minutes and did no mischief. Defendant was fined £'S and costs, in default seven days' iuiprisoinont.
AN UNSTAMPED, RECEIPT. 7 Bernard Brooks .was further charged ..with giving au unstamped receipt for ,£ls. Detective-Sergeant Rawle prosccrted, and Mr. T. Neavo- appeared for the defendant. The circumstances wero' that some lime in August,. 1917, tho defendant agreed to give a man. in Masterton lessons in operating a biograph, the defendant at the tinio being a biograph operator at one of' the picture theatres, aud the fee was to bo <£15. Tho receipt "given for this was unstamped. ■'■ Mr. Ncayo admitted the facts,., and contended that the.!.document, was. hot wholly a receipt, but an agreement to render certain services and acknowledgiment of tho fee for such services. It was submitted that the transaction -was exempted b.v HiV-'-jict. The Magistrate'held that-tho document was a receipt, and Ji,ncd , the defendant 10s. '
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19200107.2.6
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 87, 7 January 1920, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,003MAGISTRATE'S COURT Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 87, 7 January 1920, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.