MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Shannon News, 26 March 1929, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

LEVIN SITTING. The monthly sitting or the Magistrate’s Court at Levin was held yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M. RETURN OF UNIFORM ORDERED. George Frederick Hudson was not present to answer a charge that he failed to deliver on demand, at Levin on November 21st, a Defence uniform and kit-bag, valued in all at £3 9s 2d. Staff Sergt.-Major Ryan stated that the defendant was in the Wellington West Coast district last Juno, and subsequently went to the Waikato. Witness sent him two notices to return his uniform, but to these he received no reply. He forwarded a further notice, and the defendant wrote from Euakura, near Hamilton, saying he was sorry that he had not returned the uniform, but that he was shifting about a good deal. The Sergt.-Major then wrote telling defendant to return it to the Defence offied in Hamilton, and notified that officer. He had not had any reply, from the Hamilton office, nor had,he heard from Hudson again: The date of witness’s last letter to him was January 18th, and lie had now been trying to recover the uniform for nine months.

A letter from the defendant _ was received by the Court, and in this he staled that he had handed the uniform to >he Defence fffficc at Hamilton.

The Magistrate entered ,a conviction, and ordered the return of the uniform, or payment of £3 '9s 2d, with Court costs 10s and witness’s expenses 10s. A MONTH’S GAOL FOR THIEVING The theft of a mudguard from a bicycle, and the fact that'he had_ been in trouble before, resulted in WilUnm Charles Norman being sent to gaol for a month. He was charged that, on March. 9th, at Levin, lie did steal one mudguard valued at ss. Constable Grainger stated that a little girl left her bicycle outside the Convent at about 11.30 a.m. and went inside for a music lesson. The accused,' who came along on his own bicycle, took the other machine with him for some distance, removed the mudguard from it, and returned the bicycle, leaning it against the hedge in a different position from that in which he had found it. Witness interviewed him same days later, when he denied

all knowledge of the affair, and said « he wai not in the locality at the time mentioned. Pile [constable told him the best thing he could do was to return the mudguard, and about 9 o’clock the same' evening Norman left it at the house of a neighbour, a co'uple of miles out of town, telling the people that his name was Campbell'and that he had found the mudguard in a paddock. The accused was . a married man living apart from his wife, and he had difficulty in obtaining employment eying to his reputation for petty thieving. He had been before the Coiirt on previous occasions. The present case was a particularly mean theft, and the parents of the child had stated that she was Very much upset when she found that the mudguard was missing. When asked by the Bench if he had anything to say, the accused stated that he was extremely sorry for what had happened and it would not occur again. His "Worship stated that this was

the third time that Norman had been

before the Court for theft. On the first occasion he was given a chance by being ordered to , come up for sentence when called upon. T-, t the second ease lie received a year’s reformative detention, which had done him

no good. He would now be sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labour. The Magistrate remarked that people should be able to leave bicycles or cars anywhere without having parts of them stolen. UNDEFENDED GTVIE- CASES.

Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for the amounts named, in the following undefended civil cases: — Thomas C. Gollins v. F. Lowe and Sons, £33 15s 2d, costs £4 8s Gd; sam-o v. D. Patuaka, £3 11s, costs £1 14s Gd; Honora Hannan v. Q. Lamb and E. T. Ilearle, £2l, costs £4 6s Gd; Levin Borough Council v.‘ S. N. Stihvell, £6 10s Bd, costs iy. 10s 6d; same v. Mrs Mary 11. Newnityi (sued in respect jf her separate estate), £5 7s 9d, costs £1 10s Gd; same v. Harold Hudson, £l4 2s Gd, costs £2 15s; same v. Miriama Matakatea, £7 6s 2d, costs £1 19s Gd; same v. Wiremu Parokopa Matakatca, £3 3s Id, costs £1 9s Gd; 11. Mew v. King] Hori, £1 13s 9d, costs 13s; estate of 11. W. Eyes v. Ilohepa Williams, £3 0s Id, costs £1 11s Gd; P O. von Hartitzsch v. Toledo Berkel Co., £5 Is, costs 15s; O. B. Gilmour v. J. E. McMillan, £3, costs Bs. JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

On a judgment summons George Sevan was ordered to -pay Park and Adams £7 forthwith, in default seven days.