POLICE COURT.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4596, 3 September 1923, Page 2

POLICE COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before Mr J. H. Salmon, S.M.) BREACH OF SEPARATION ORDER. At the Police Court to-day H. D. Sorensen was charged with trespassing on his wife’s property while a separation order was in force. Mr Hanna, for the defendant, said that the charge had been laid by warrant, and he was of the opinion that the Act did not provide for tjie charge as laid. Senior Sergt. O’Grady said that it was a bad case, and Mrs Sorensen had gone to the police for protection. His Worship said it appeared to him that .the police were justified in taking the action they had done. He could not allow the objection raised by Mr Hanna. Mr Hanna then said that his client would plead not guilty. Mrs W. R. M. Sorensen, sworn,-said that she obtained an order for separation from her husband and maintenance at £2 per week. The order was made on August 6. She had only received one payment of £2. The defendant had visited the house on the evening of August 6 and had stayed all night. On a later date he again visited the house and forced the lock of the door. She asked defendant to leave the premises, but he refused. She then went to the police and asked for protection, Defendant had not visited her since the police executed the warrant. She did not want her husband back in the home at all.

To Mr Hanna, witiiess said that she had taken steps to recover the amount of maintenance due. Defendant had not used any violence to her, but he had threatened her on several occasions. Some time ago he threatened to use a knife on her. She was more or less afraid of her husband. To the police, witness said defendant had tried to force the windows of the house. He had sent her a bag of coal, which he paid for. Mr Hanna produced a list of goods which defendant had supplied for the use of the family. Witness admitted that defendant had supplied some of the groceries shown on the list. Constable McClinchy, sworn, said t,hat Mrs Sorensen had called at the police station and had asked for protection, and he detailed evidence as to the issue of the warrant. He believed defendant had kept away from the house since the warrant had been issued. Mr Hanna said that there was no case to answer. He admitted that there had been a technical trespass, but there had been nothing to cause such a drastic action as th-J issue of a warrant, il. D. Sorensen, sworn, said that he had consented to a separation order last court day. He was prepared to go away as soon as he had a job to go to. His health had not been too good. He had given his family food and fuel, and to one of the girls he had given money t'o buy eggs. He had never molested or threatened his wife. The locks on the o'pofs were not in working order. He did not break them. To the police, defendant said that his wife had ordered him out of -the house and then she would a,sk for ■ money for groceries. He did not loaf about the streets. He denied forcing the locks. It was necessary for him to enter 'tjhe house to get his possessions. He had not been in the house since the warrant had been issued. Mr Hanna asked that the case be treated as trivial, and asked for a nominal penalty. Defendant had not been discouraged to stay in Paeroa. He quite appreciated the fact that his client; had not carried out his par.t of the pact. His Worship said that it t was useless to fine such a man. It was the most flagrant case he had heard of. The punishment, no doubt, reflected on the family, but if a woman married a waster, then the consequences would have to be borne. Accused was convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labour in Auckland Gaol, On a minor charge of trespass ami remaining in the 'house of his wife contrary to the Destitute Persons Act, 1910, defendant was convicted and discharged.