MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVII, Issue 59, 9 July 1915, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TO-DAY'S SITTING. His Worship W. G. Kenrick, Esq., presided at the sitting of the Court; he.ld at Stratford this morning. There was a large civil list, ,one information for driving a motor car without lights, two informations for failure to maintain wife and children. ".WHERE'S YOUR LIGHTS?" Borough Inspector v. W. H. Robinson (W. G. Malone per Mr P. Thomson). -Defendant was charged with driving a mojtor car at night without having lights. A plea of guilty was entered. The -Borough Inspector said that defendant had driven his car a huiir died yards before pulling up when called to do so. It was a moonlight night; The lamps were warm when lie felt them. /

Defendant said that he had stopped to light his lamps twice in Broadway the same night, and when, seen by th© lie was! travelling slowly to pull up at. the Glub to fix the lamps. His tail lamp was burning, .showing' <his>; number, clearly. 'There, was no attempt to evade the (Inspector, and the lights had .failed through-pure^misadventure. The <slagis;ti;»te, in giving judgment,; said that there was evidently no ;atteippt to evade the by-law? and the absence of lights: w«s <mere .ccident.In the circumstances he* would enter a couviction without .costs, JUVENILE :COURT.

•Police v. John Read.—Defendant,' a boy of -fourteen, was charged with breaking two window panes at Midhirst. A plea of guilty wg,,,entered. Sergeant Dale.' prosecuting, said Chat many cfomplaints*sh"S(T ? b , eeii made by people in Midhir.st about larrikins who frequented -the; streets. The defendant was a particularly bad hid and had been, previously convicted of theft. The whole, trouble seemed to be that the parents .could not control 'the. boy. • The boy's mother stated that he was always in bed at seven o'clock in the evening. ; ffc reply to this statement the police stated that the panes were broken at night. The mother then said that people in Midhirst only spoke.of the boy to get him into trouble. She did not think it fair that her boy should be blamed. The Magistrate ,in severely admonishing the boy, incidentally pointed out to the mother that the. whole of the boy's trouble was her neglect in not looking after him and keeping proper control over him. In later years she would look to her children for support, but would not get it unless she brought them up- in the proper way. I He would give "the boy another chance•! and merely order his parents to pay the cost of the windows. He Mould also order that he remain indoors after 7 o'clock at night unless accompanied by his parents. If he appeared again he Would be sent to Burnham School, where he would be severely trained in the way he -'should go. MAINTENANCE CASES.

Kate Anderson (Mr Hutherfurd) v. Henry Anderson (Mr P. Thomson). Owing to non-appearance of the defendant in these oases, the evidence of informant was taken under cross-ex-amination.