VARIOUS DOMINION ITEMS.

Hokitika Guardian, 10 February 1921, Page 3

VARIOUS DOMINION ITEMS.

[BY TELEGRAPH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION]

, GAMBLING IN A TRAIN. NEW PLYMOUTH, Feb 10. In the Police Court, William Patrick Neary, described as a labourer belonging to Auckland, was fined £2O in default two months’ imprisonment for playing “two-up” in the mail train on 22nd December. THE TIMARU MURDER. CHRISTCHURCH, Feb 10. The chief witness for the defence this morning was Dr Crosbie, Supt. of the Sunnysido Mental Asylum, who, in answer ,to a direct question, said he considered the accused insane. He had made two thorough examinations which showed Matthews believed himself to lie capable of instituting reform in sexual and social procedure, and he-had a definite delusion of persecution. Witness was cross-examined at length as to whether Matthews when the crime was committed was capable of understanding the nature and quality of the act. His Honour said the case hinged upon this point.

A SERIOUS ACCIDENT. MASTERTON, February 10. An accident on the Carterton road to-day resulted in a man named William Vine and a four year old girl, the daughter of A. T. Jackson of Mastbl'ton were taken to the hospital. Vine and the girl were driving in a gig and it is surmised the horse bolted? The screaming of the girl attracted the telegraph linesmen who found the gig jammed betwoerj a telegraph post and the fence. Vine was lying unconscious and the little girl jammed against the wheel. Vine is still unconscious. The girl suffered a fractured skull and Vine has serious injuries to a leg and his head. CONTEMPT OF COURT. AUCKLAND, Feb 10. J. F. Dickson, solicitor, was again before Mr Roynton, S.M., on a charge of contempt of Court, arising from comment made as to the Magistrate’s conduct of the case. Dickson still : maintained lie committed no offence, j and that the Court had no jurisdiction ; to deal with the matter. The Magistrate said he would not place a black mark on a young man’s character hv fining or imprisoning counsel. It would be'sufficient to state that his conduct towards the Court was the conduct unbecoming of a gentleman and unworthy j of a member of the legal profession. The censure was made solely with the object of vindicating the authority, of the Court.