MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 November 1921, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH CASES. The failure of a number of children to attend regularly at the Technical Schoo) night classes resulted in being brought against the parents by the Education Board’s attendance officer (Mr. G. Pascoe). Fines of £1 and costs were imposed against th© following:—Alice Trueman, David Gillespie, Percy Brookes, D. E, Berge, C. N. Jensen, G. H. McGahey and A. K. Smart. The last-named, who admitted the charge, said that his son had been to the High School for two yeara, and had voluntarily joined the technical night classes. He did not think it was compulsory for the boy to attend in view of his previous tuition. His Worship said that on the plea of guilty defendant would also have to be convicted. TROUBLE OVER HOME WOJUS, A charge was brought against Edward Crooke of failing to send hi© child to the West End school. The attendance officer (Mr. G. Pascoe) said defendant had been before th© court on a previous occasion, when he had objected to his child being given home-work. The boy attended at school the next day, but had been absent for a half-day each Friday ever since. Th© excuses sent f for the dlild’o non-attendance, however, were not satisfactory. His Worship questioned Crooke about the excuses, and remarked that they did not seem very satisfactory. Defendant replied that he was very anxious that his child should be educated, and was quite willing to send him to school. He had never had any complaints from other schools, and in thi© instance it seemed as if the headmaster had a “set” on the boy. His Worship: Surely you don’t suggest that the headmaster has singled him out from all th© others. Defendant: Probably there are others. I object to the boy doing home work, and I suppose that if I did not object the headmaster would not make the fuss about th© boy being away. His Wonship: “The fact of the matter is that you have set your will in defiance of the headmaster. Defendant: I object to home work, and I will not allow any child of mine to do it. His Worship entered a conviction, defendant being fined ‘£2, costs 7s. AN OLD OFFENDER. A charge of committing a breach of his prohibition order was preferred against John George H. Blane, the information alleging that on October 24 he was found on licensed premises (the White Hart Hotel) during the currency of the order. He pleaded not guilty. The evidence of Constable Philips was to the effect that he eaw Blane on the day mentioned, and defendant was considerably under the influence of liquor. Witness noticed him walk along from Devon Street central towards the White Hart Hotel. In company with SeniorSergeant McCrorie h» paid a visit to the premises and found Blane about to come out of th© main door. Senior-Sergeant McQrorie said they went through th© hotel and could not i find Blane, but he came out aa they were standing on the footpath. Defendant had been knocking about town all last week, and had hardly been sober during that period. Defendant said he had looked in to the smoking room to find a commercial traveller, and was in the passage when the police walked in. They did not see him and he could have slipped out if he had wished. He contended there was nothing underhand about his action, and he said he did not go in for the purpose of getting a drink. His Worship enquired if anything was known against defendant, and the Senior Sergeant handed in a list of previous convictions. “H’m, ’you’ll soon need another list,” commented His Worship, as he pesueed Blane’s record. A fine of £3, with costs 7s, was imposed, and in response to an application by defendant, he was given fourteen days in which to pay the fine. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given as under: — Bellringer Bros., Ltd., v. George C. Sinclair, £5, costs 10s; the Standard Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Morton T. Rogers, £4, costs £1 5s 6d; Helen Hughe© v. Allen Mills, £lO 10s, costs £2 17s. Judgment summonses were dealt with as follows: — P. B. Fitzherbert v. Eruiti, claim for £24 4«s. Debtor, who appeared, was examined, and subsequently agreed to pay £4 per month off the debt. An order was made in these terms, the first payment to be made a month hence. At the suit of R. A. Large, Frederick G. Smith was ordered to pay the sum of £l9 0s 6d on or before December 2, in default twenty-one days’ imprisonment. Te Ore Rakeipeto was ordered to pay Hallenstein Bros. £lB Is, in default 21 days’ imprisonment, the order to be suspended for one month after the date of service of the order.