POLICE COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4573, 8 June 1923, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

TUESDAY, JUNE 5,1923. (Before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M.) LOST MILITARY HAT. At the police Court bn Tuesday a Territorial named F. E. Morris was charged with failing to give possession of a military hat, valued at 10s. Sergt.-Major R. Patterson, of the Waihi Defence staff, gave evidence in which he stated that defendant had been written to on several occasions instructing him to return the hat, but the requests had been ignored. His Worship said that he had a letter befoie him from defendant which stated that he had lost the hat referred to and enclosing a postal note for Ils. Defendant was convicted and ordered to pay costs, 16s, in default three days’ imprisonment in Thames Gaol. A SAVAGE DOG. Frederick Dare, of Rahu Road, Markaytown, was charged with being the owner of a dog which it was alleged had attacked a little girl named Ella P. Brown. . Senior-Sergeant, O’Grady ac-ked that the dog be destroyed. Mr Gorrje, for the defendant, explained that the dog was boisterous and rough rather than savage. Dare had been absent from home frequently and the dog had got out of control somewhat. It was submitted hat the little girl was of a very nervous disposition, and the dog had frightened her more than hurt her. A letter from the mother of the child was produced in which it was stated that the little girl had overcome her fright, and she and the dog were now quite friendly. The letter asked that the dog should not be destroyed. The Magistrate said he would consider the facts submitted by Mr Gorrie, and also the contents of the letter. He wished Dare to clearly understand that the dog would have to be kept under proper control, otherwise it would be destroyed. Defendant was convicted and ordered to pay court costs, 15s. THEFT OF A HORSE. A youth living at Turua was charged, under the Police Offiences Act, 1919. with unlawfully converting a horse to his own use belonging to Raymond. Nicld, of Paeroa; Sergt. O’Grady conducted the prosecution. R. Nield, carter, of Paeroa, sworn, said that he had his horse at the Puke, where he was working. The horse got away during November, He looked for it, but could not find it. The butcher had told him that his horse was at Netherton, and his brother got it from Netherton and returned it to the Puke. Witness. did not know accused. He saw a man named Clptworthy riding his horse one day in January. Clotworthy said that accused had loaned him the horse. He valued the animal at £9. D. F. Clotworthy said that he had borrowed the horse from a man at Turua. Witness had ridden into Paeroa on the horse, and Nield junr. recognised the animal as that of his brother’s. Witness had remarked to accused that it was a good hack, and accused replied that his father had given it to him. Witness, accompanied by Nield,, went to the Police Station and interviewed Constable McClinchy. Constable J. McClinchy said he had allowed Clotworthy to ride back horn-; on the horse on the understanding that he would return to the police station accompanied by the accused next day. Statements were made by both in his presence. The accused was only a lad of 15 years. His Worship said that the case was apparently concerning the father as well as the son. Accused was convicted and fined £l, costs 7s witnesses’ expenses, Clotworthy £4 and R. Nield 7s 6d, the amount of the fine to be paid t,o RNield, the owner of the horse ; in de fault one month in Thames gaol. CRUELTY TO A HORSE. A sharemilker was charged under the Police Offiences Act,, 1908, with cruelly ill-treating a horse by beating it with a stick. Constable McClinchy stated that in response to a telephone call he visited the farm where defendant was employed and found that the horse had been cruelly beaten, as evidenced by the weals upon the anima]. It was defendan’s first offence. Mr Gorrie, appearing for the defendant, said that the offence was admitted. The horse was a very 'troublesome one. Defendant had lost his temper and thrashed it. .He suffered severe pain from an injury to his jaw at times. Counsel asked His Worship to deal leniently with the defendant, who had learnt, a lesson and was not likely to offend again. His Worship said he trusted that defendant would amend his ways. It was a .serious offence. His Worship was prepared to take into consideration the facts submitted by Mr Gorrie. Defendant was convicted and fined £2, costs Ils ; in default, 14 days in Thames Gaol. THEFT OF ELECTRICAL GEAR. A youth was charge with stealing a magneto, spot-lamp, bridle, spanner, etc., from various business firms during the early part of last month. The Police had four separate charges laid against the accused, who pleaded guilty to all charges and elected to be dealt with summarily. The Police stated that the accused had previously been convicted of theft on two occasions, and it was consideied that the accused should .be given detention. Mr Porritt, for the accused, said it was true that the boy had been before the Court previously. The father had made repayment on those occasions. Accused was only seventeen years old. The father recognised that his son had broken the law. It was submitted that the boy had a “kink for electrical appliances. The parents were very upset over their son’s present escapades. The boy was a good boy, other than the mania he had for picking up electrical things. Mr Porritt asked if His Worship could have the boy bound down to some definite trade under strict, restraint. His Worship said that it seemed a

case of kleptomania. He had a certain amount of sympathy with the parents. However, the boy would have to be put under restraint. There was just a chance that he might yet make a decent citizen. Accused was sentenced to a term of detention not exceeding two years, with the recommendation that he bo sent to the Borstal Institute,, where he could learn an electrical trade.