John Batger "a merchant in a mess"

 A MERCHANT IN A MESS.

JOHN BATGER'S BAD BEHAVIOR.

What Happened in the Express.

Intense Respectability Saves a Sexual Sinner.

Somewhat of a sensation was caused in the South Island by the appearance in the Christchurch Magistrate's Court on Wednesday of' John Batger, frozen meat, and produce merchant, of Invercargill, on a charge of committing a grossly indecent act in a carriage on the Dunedin and Christchurch express on March 10. Batger is a keen-faced, middle-aged individual, who usually stops at Warner's aristocratic pub. when in Christchurch. He pleaded not guilty through lawyer Donnelly. The prosecution was based mainly on the evidence of guard Frank Vernazoni, who passed through the birdcage occupied by Batger and the young woman when the train was near Glenavy. He discovered the couple in such a position as to leave no doubt in his mind that a grossly indecent act was being committed by both. He remarked to Batger that if he was going to commit an indecent act he might at least draw the curtains. Batger replied, "It's all right, old man," and reaching behind him displayed his tourist ticket. The guard afterwards returned and asked for the ticket to ascertain the name of the traveller, but Batger refused to show it. He also refused to give the name of the lady, and offered the guard a whisky. That functionary was not to be bribed, and threatened to report the libertine, who said, "You will get yourself into trouble as well as me." 

George Walker, news agent, joined the train at Palmerston South. He was passing through the train near Shag Point Junction and looked through the window of the bird-cage, and saw something that

 SHOCKED HIM SOMETHING TERRIBLE.

On returning later, he witnessed more, and the conduct of Batger and the lady scandalised him. Lawyer Donnelly cross-questioned him severely, and witness said he couldn't swear as to what they were actually doing. Counsel for the defence claimed that the evidence of Walker related to an act separate and distinct from that testified to by the guard, and couldn't be heard in support of the charge. Sergeant Johnston contended that the offence was a continuous one. Mr Donnelly urged that where alleged offences were committed, within one hundred miles of each other they should be the subject of two different charges, and evidence pertaining to one couldn't be given in support of the other. The point was important as, the guard's evidence would thus be uncorroborated. Counsel quoted law on the subject, and mentioned the case of Hall, of Timaru, when the prisoner was charged with the murder of his father-in-law. The Court then admitted evidence that Hall had formerly given poison to his wife, but the Court of Appeal subsequently held that such testimony was inadmissable and Hall was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hargreavcs and Peter. Pender, J's.P., decided to hear the whole of the facts however. For the defence, Donnelly represented that Batger was 

AN EMINENTLY RESPECTABLE MERCHANT 

from prohibited Invcrcargill, where he had a wife and family. He called an. ex-bank manager of Invercargill, now in Christchurch, as to his character. Batger had a son attending Christ's College. A Christchurch grain merchant also testified to Batger's intense respectability. 

John Batger, giving evidence in his own defence, said he had known the young lady ever since she was a small child, and met her on the Palmerston platform. He had been travelling in a first-class smoker, and joined the girl in the bird-cage. They were talking when the close atmosphere of the compartment made her faint. He called the waiter, who brought some soda; and he put a teaspoonful of whisky in her glass. The girl then fainted, and, in assisting her, his actions were open to misinterpretation by the guard. He swore that he had not been guilty of indecency. The lady would be the first to resent it, and she knew nothing of the present proceedings. With regard to the evidence of the news agent, the girl did jump on Batger 's knee and jump off again. She was a lively young lady, and as he had known her since she was four years old, and was old enough to be her father, there was nothing suggestive in the circumstances. Batger didn't look upon the guard's threat as serious, and didn't think he had reported the matter to the stationmaster. Whittaker knew Batger stayed at Warner's when in. Christchurch and had the guard reported the occurrence, Batger thought the stationmaster would have interviewed him (Batger) about it. Accused acknowledged to Sergeant Johnston that he had said to the guard

"WE ARE ALL HUMAN," but meant that the guard was human to place such a deplorable construction on Batger's action in the bird cage. 

Sergt. Johnston: What is the lady's name? 

Mr Donnelly strenuously objected to the question.

Hargreaves, J.P.: It seems peculiar that the lady has not been called.

Mr Donnelly: The prosecution doesn't suggest she is a prostitute. 

Sergt. Johnston: Why do you not call the lady? 

Batger: She is a respectable lady and has no knowledge of this charge. To avoid misconstruction on the motives of accused Mr Donnelly suggested that he would give the name of the woman. 

Sergt, Johnston: What is the lady's name ? 

Accused: Miss Wilson. She lives in Auckland with her family. 

What is her Christian name? — I do not know.

Are you separated from your wife? — Yes.  

What was the reason? — An accident. It was a domestic arrangement. 

Guard Vernazoni, recalled, swore positively to what had taken place. 

The Bench retired, and returning in 12 minutes, found the case against Batger proved, and fined him £10 and costs. It was subsequently discovered that the Bench had no power to impose a fine and after considerable argument with 'counsel, who claimed that previous good character didn't justify stigma of imprisonment, the Bench convicted Batger and discharged him.   -NZ Truth, 25/4/1908.

DIVORCE.

DUNEDIN, this day. Sitting in divorce, Mr. Justice Williams heard the case Batger v. John Batger, wife's petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of misconduct. Defendant is a well-known stock and station agent at Invercargill. Respondent denies the alleged misconduct. The case is being heard in camera.  -Auckland Star, 12/8/1908.

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT. — IN DIVORCE

(Before His Honor Mr Justice William' and a Jury of' Twelve.) BATGER V. BATGER.

Eveline Alexa Batger, of Littlebotrrne, Dunedin (petitioner) v. John Batger, of Invercargill, stock and station agent (respondent). — This was an application for dissolution of marriage on the ground of misconduct, and petitioner asked for such relief as His Honor might deem fit to give. Respondent, in his statement of defence, denied having misconducted himself in a railway carriage on or about March 10 last. Mr J. H. Hosking, K.C., and Mr P. S. K. Macassey appeared on behalf of petitioner, and Mr W. C. MacGregor and Mr Rattray (Invercargill) represented the respondent. 

Mr Hosking: I think my learned friends for the respondent agree with me that the evidence likely to be produced is of such a character that it should not be published. I don't think I am going too far in saying that I think it appears to be one of those cases in which your Honor should exercise the powers given by directing that all details of the proceedings should not be published, and that persons not connected with the case — persons who are here merely out of curiosity — should not be allowed to remain in court. 

His Honor: Does the other side agree to that? 

Mr MacGregor: I concur in that. I think it is right. 

His Honor: From what I can see of the pleadings, that course, I think, would be desirable. 

Mr Hosking: The reporters would like to know if they are at liberty to publish the fact that proceedings are taking place, and to give the names of the parties and the result. 

His Honor: So far as the publication of the report, is concerned, I will make an order, under section 66 of the Act of 1904. The order of the Court is that the publication of any report or account of the evidence in the case is forbidden. Is that what you suggest? 

Mr Hosking: Yes. 

His Honor: That, of course, does not debar the Press publishing the result of the proceedings. You do not suggest that? 

Mr Hosking: No, but the reporters wanted to be on the safe side by getting your Honor's ruling in that direction. The Act, I take it, refers to anything in the nature of evidence.

His Honor: Yes.

Mr Macassey then opened the case, and evidence was called on the petitioner's behalf. The respondent's case was being heard when we went to press.   -Evening Star, 12/8/1908.

John Batger, intensely respectable Invercargill merchant, stock and station agent, etc., etc., this week has figured prominently in the Dunedin Divorce Court, where his missus has been asking for an earthly judge to snap asunder the links that bound her to John on account of John's alleged infidelity. Case, of course, is being heard in camera, and local papers, therefore, have missed making a big splash. John B., it will be remembered, is the intensely respectable person who, a few months back, was caught, on .a Southern express train, fiddling with an allegedly respectable young female. "Intense Respectability" was pleaded for all it was worth, but without avail, as John B. was convicted and discharged, though he narrowly escaped doing a term, in Cleary's hell. Divorce proceedings now explain a good deal.  -NZ Truth, 15/8/1908.

"Truth" was happy to obey the law regarding suppression of the evidence in the case of Batger v Batger, but not so happy with the suggestions from other publications that it had been thwarted in the reporting of its usual material.

Capital has been lately made out of the fact the Magistrate Widdowson, at Dunedin, directed the press, under the pains and penalties of contempt of Court, to suppress, in a recent case heard before him, certain facts which he held to be of an indecent nature. Fearing a fine for contempt of Court, the daily press, notwithstanding its threat to override, because it was plutocratic and powerful enough, the then certain intention of the Legislature, were wise enough in this particular instance, to respect the magisterial mandate, and as a consequence the readers of the daily press were spared what were held to be a nauseating narrative. Baulked or bounced, it does not matter which, from pilfering pence from the public pocket, the dirty, dishonest daily press coolly and audaciously veered round, and while lamenting its own impotency and inability to increase its limited circulation, impudently asserted that Magistrate Widdowson's embargo was a set-back to some journal or other — the daily press are too cowardly to name the offending journal — "which makes a noxious trade of retailing the unsavory details of such proceedings to its readers, to the injury of public morals." Good old public morals! As a matter of real fact, "Truth" heartily applauds the action of Magistrate Widdowson, though at the same time it doubts the legality of his action in proscribing the alleged "improper" evidence. But while applauding the Magistrate, "Truth" nevertheless states its conviction that the proscription of evidence given in a Court of Justice is a dangerous procedure, liable to lead to scandalous abuse and forming a precedent that will gradually lead to the Courts of Justice being closed to public and press. Conscious of the abuses to which magisterial discretion and indiscretion will lead to, if the daily press persist in applauding and upholding the refusal by magistrates of permission to the press to report and even comment on the doings in Courts and the administration of Justice, all "Truth" can say is the "blood shall be on the heads of the Press." We have heard of late a good deal of "The Liberty of the Press." Where, now, is the cry? It's a set-back to the garbage press. Is it? Presuming that by the garbage press, "Truth" is indicated, perhaps it would not be amiss to declare that whenever in the interests of public morality it has been deemed expedient to let the world know how immoral New Zealand is, "Truth" may have offended daily paper good taste, but care has always been exercised, that anything of an offensive nature has been exorcised. Notwithstanding the silly, senseless suggestion of one "respectable" but very meagre and miserable morning paper that the Commissioner of Police is morally afraid to tackle "Truth," no chance has ever been taken. As the law stands it is obeyed, and thus we find Judges of the Supreme Court declaring that mandates from the Bench or not, the press of New Zealand (no exceptions have been made) has always displayed care and even delicacy in handling very ticklish cases.

The brutal, unwarranted and always invited attacks on this journal from the dishonest dailies have served to bring under public notice one remarkable fact. "Truth" is not called upon to defend itself. It is called indecent, but no attempt is ever made by the daily press to prove its ill-grounded assertions. Rather is it to the contrary when "Truth" accuses the plutish press of dishonesty, of unlawfulness, of rottenness generally, it proves to the hilt all it has said, and even to strengthen our case we have borrowed the thunder of the lion, the Attorney-General. This week "Truth" is not called on for a defence. But just to show where, if necessary, this paper can justify its existence, not to mention intrusion into the social, political and moral state of the community, it points a finger of pride to the light it sheds in this issue on the Westport murder, the peculiar and the cruel circumstances of which the daily press has left severely alone.   -NZ Truth, 10/10/1908.

John Batger's name features in further court cases - but only concerning insurance commissions, breach of contract over the sale of oats - fascinating things like that. He died in 1929.

Frederick Augustus Armitage, 8/8/1888-20/10/1934.

 MAGISTERIAL

CHRISTCHURCH. Saturday, March 25. (Before Mr R. Beetham, S.M.) 

Petty Theft. — Frederick Armitage, ten years of age, and Albert Amos, fourteen years of age, were charged with having, on March 20, stolen a bicycle lamp, value 7s 6d, the property of John Carl. Detective Chrystall outlined the. facts of the case. On March 20 Mr J. Carl, licensee of the Empire Hotel, left a bicycle lamp in a room on the ground floor of the hotel, access to which could be gained both from the rear end front of the premises. No one, however, had any right to enter the room, which was a private one. The lamp was, in the course of a few hours, missed, and it was later ascertained that the two accused had offered it for sale to Mr Pyke, second-hand dealer, who, not considering the boys answers as to how they came by the lamp satisfactory, telephoned to the police. On being questioned by Detective Fitzgerald, one of the boys admitted that they had taken it from a passage. Sergeant Dougan said the boy Amos was allowed by his parents to ran wild about the streets, where he was to be seen selling flowers. The other boy was unknown to the police. Mr Beetham sentenced each of the accused to receive twelve strokes of the birch rod.   -Star, 25/3/1899.

Alleged Theft of a Bicycle. — Frederick Armitage, aged twelve, was charged with having, on Nov. 7, stolen a bicycle, value £9, the property of F. Cowper. Sub-Inspector O'Brien said there was another lad implicated in the theft, and the police would ask for a remand to secure him. Mr Donnelly appeared for the accused, and applied for bail. The lad was remanded until next Friday, bail being allowed in one surety of £20.   -Star, 11/12/1899.

As the result of a disturbance in Manners street on Saturday night Andrew Cuthberston was arrested on a charge of assaulting Edward Water's, and Frederick Armitage for an alleged assault made on Constable J. Thompson while the latter was discharging his duty.  -NZ Times, 22/10/1906.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

(.Before Mr V. G. Day s.M.) Elizabeth Adams was charged with being an habitual drunkard. She pleaded for another chance, and the Magistrate reduced/the charge to drunkenness, and gave her the opportunity of going to gaol for gown days or the Salvation Army Home for a month. She, however, decided on thE latter course. 

Wm. Welsh pleaded guilty to drunkenness, also to procuring liquor dining the currency of a prohibition order. The Magistrate convicted and discharged him on the understanding that he paid £1 0s 6d, medical expenses. 

Frederick Armitage, a young man defended by Mr Leathern, pleaded guilty to stealing two pieces of linoleum, valued at 30s, the Property of Samuel Holmes. Mr Leathern said that the defendant was under the influence of liquor when he committed the offence. He was a single man, and the linoleum was of no use to him. He thought that the Magistrate could very well extend a little leniency towards accused. The Magistrate inflicted a fine of 40s and costs, in default 14 days' imprisonment.   -Press, 10/12/1907.

For using obscene language in public places Daniel McDevitt and Frederick Armitage, both of whom pleaded guilty, were fined £5 each, in default, 21 days' imprisonment.   -Evening Post, 4/5/1908.

Housewives should beware of petty thefts by visitors to the back-door. This morning, at ths Magistrate's Court, a vegetable hawker named Frederick Armitage, a young man, appeared before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., to answer a charge of committing theft of a jug and cup, value 2s 6d, the property of Paul Pelic, Martin-street. According to the statement of Sub-Inspector Phair, accused had knocked at informant's door a couple of times, and then, presuming that nobody was within the house, had appropriated the jug and cup, which were awaiting the milkman's call. Informant, who was at home at the time, heard accused and followed him. He subsequently recovered the articles from Armitage in Webb-street. Mr. Cook, who appeared for accused at the instigation of his relatives, stated that his client was addicted to drink, which was evidently the cause of his present predicament Seeing that accused had been convicted of theft twice previously, his Worship stated that he had no alternative but to sentence him to seven days' imprisonment.    -Evening Post, 12/2/1909.

The charge against Frederick Armitage, on remand, of theft from John Nelson of four cheques and £5 in money — total value £48 6s 1d — was heard before Mr. W. G. Riddell in the Magistrate's Court to-day. Informant gave evidence that on the evening of 1st April he had been drinking with accused. Accused saw him go to bed, witness leaving his money and cheques in a pocketbook in an inside pocket of his coat. On awakening next morning, he discovered the loss of five £1 notes and four cheques. Robt. Cook, solicitor, gave evidence to the effect that Armitage had tendered him a cheque for £5 17s for certain services, stating that he got the cheque from Nelson. Through witness's telephone, and in his hearing, accused rang up Nelson, who replied that the cheque was all right. John Morris stated that he had refused an offer of £1 made to him by Armitage to cash a cheque. Detective Connolly said that when accused was being conducted to the Police Station, he remarked that when drunk Nelson was always under the impression that he had been robbed. Armitage added that a mistake was being made this time. Other evidence was called by Chief Detective Broberg. Armitage pleaded not guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Bail was fixed at £100, in two sureties of £50 each.  -Evening Post, 7/4/1909.

The jury empanelled in the case of Frederick Armitage, charged in the Supreme Court on Saturday with having stolen £5 in cash and four cheques of the total value of £43 from the person of John Nelson, after a retirement of over two hours, returned with a verdict o£ not guilty. The accused was therefore discharged.  -Evening Post, 17/5/1909.

CITY POLICE COURT

FRIDAY, MAY 21. (Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M.) : 

THREE COOL THEFTS. 

HARNESS TAKEN IN THE STREET. 

Frederick Armitage pleaded guilty to three charges of theft. The articles stolen were (1) a saddle, breeching, and pair of reins valued at £3 10s, the property of David Barrie, on May 18th; (2) a set of harness, valued at £1 10s, the property of Francis William Scott, on May 19th; (3) a box of grapes and a cart cover, valued at £1 l1s, the property of John Withers, on May 20th. In the third case, another young man, Charles Russell, was associated with Armitage. He, too, pleaded guilty. 

Chief-Detective Broberg said that Barry, who is a boarding-house keeper, had left his horse and cart outside the fruit mart, where he was doing business. The accused took part of the harness and sold it to a second-hand dealer. Next day Scott had left his horse and cart in the same place. The accused took charge of the cart, and drove off to Luke's lane, where he took the cart on to a vacant section. There he took off the harness, which he sold to a dealer for 9s. The day after that, Withers left his horse and cart in Blair street, when Russell and Armitage came along, and drove off. There was a cover and a box of grapes in the cart, both of which the accused disposed of. All the property except the grapes had been recovered. Nothing was known about Russell, but Armitage had been three times previously convicted of theft, and once of assaulting the police. His Worship remanded the accused Russell for sentence until Monday, the police in the meantime to make inquiries as to his past record. Armitage was sentenced to three months' imprisonment on each charge. On the first two charges the sentences were made cumulative, the third being concurrent with the second, thus making a total of six months.  -NZ Times, 22/5/1909.

TAKEN OUT AND TAKEN IN.

Muggins' Musical Evening.

Albert Driscoll blew into Dunedin recently from way-back, and after a little experience, of the joys of city life struck up an acquaintance with one Frederick Armitage, who promised to show the man from the country some of the city's social life. To this end, Frederick invited Albert, on February 28, to a musical evening at the house of a friend. Albert is the possessor of a metal watch and a gold chain, the latter being embellished with three gold medals, and on the way to the musicale, Armitage asked to be allowed to wear it, as he desired to cut a bit of a dash. Driscoll didn't see any harm in that and passed over his jewellery. Finally they came to the place where the alleged music was to eventuate, and Armitage knocked at the front door. There was no response to the knocking — a somewhat strange occurrence when a man has invited his friends to a feast of harmony at his house. Armitage expressed his deep regret at the way things had fallen out, and said he would go to the back door and see if he had better luck there. He went away, sure enough — but he didn't come back.  Driscoll waited a while; and then made investigations, waking up very soon to the fact that he bad been brought to an empty house and that his watch, chain, and medals bad "taken unto themselves wings" as the saying goes, which saying doesn't mean that goods of value have solved the problem of aerial flight, but merely that some men are smarter than others and that the smartest get off with the gonce. 

Recognising that he had been diddled, Albert poured his tale of woe into the ear of the detective department, and by March 2 Armitage bad been lagged by Detective Mitchell. On that day he was brought up before Magistrate Widdowson and remanded for a week. 

Armitage came before the police court on Wednesday. He pleaded guilty. There were ten previous convictions against him, being for theft. 

The accused said the watch was taken as described, but added, "I left Driscoll for another reason than the one given, and when I returned Driscoll was out of sight."

Magistrate Widdowson said there was only one course to take with accused, who would be sentenced to six months' imprisonment.  -NZ Truth, 12/3/1910.

ASSAULT. 

Frederick Armitage pleaded guilty, to a charge of drunkenness, but not guilty to a charge of having assaulted Leslie Brown on December 30. The charge arose out of a case dealt with on Saturday, when Joseph John Tobin Brown, William John Wade, and William Thomas were jointly charged with using threatening behaviour in Taranaki Street, whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned. All four admitted the offence, but Brown stated that he had acted under provocation and was discharged, while the other three were sent to gaol for seven days. Armitage set up a different defence to any of the others, but the evidence was against him, and it was mentioned that he had a long list of previous convictions. The magistrate stated that it appeared as if Armitage had been the most serious offender, and he would therefore he sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment. On the charge of drunkenness he was convicted and discharged.   -Dominion, 3/1/1911.

INSULTING LANGUAGE. 

Frederick Armitage was fined 40s for using insulting language in Manchester street.  -Press, 9/2/1911.

ALLEGED THEFT OF A BICYCLE. 

Frederick Armitage was charged with the theft of a bicycle. value £16, the property of Leonard Smythe. Accused said he wished to be tried in the Supreme Court. He was remanded till Thursday.  -Star, 24/4/1911.

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. 

(Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURGH, November 17. 

At the Supreme Court to-day, a middle-aged man named John McCluskey, charged with having committed an indecent assault on a child, six years of age, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and declared an habitual criminal. The accused possessed a very bad record. Frederick Armitage, on a charge of stealing a bicycle, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment.   -Ashburton Guardian, 18/11/1911.

SUPREME COURT

A BICYCLE THIEF. 

Frederick Armitage pleaded not guilty in answer to A charge of having, on October 25, stolEn a bicycle, the property of Leonard R. Smythe. 

The evidence for the prosecution was that Smythe had left his bicycle outside a billiard saloon at 3 p.m. on October 25, and later had discovered that it was missing. At 6 p.m. the accused was found with the stolen machine in the "Lyttelton Times" right-of-way, and stated that a friend had given it to him at the Star and Garter Hotel to leave at the "Lyttelton Times" Office. The evidence also set out that earlier in the day he had told two men that he had purchased the bicvcle for £9. 

Leonard Rodney Smythe and Albert Ernest Pellow gave evidence: Pellow stated that the saloon from which the bicycle was stolen was opposite the Dominion Hotel. Armitage was just turning into the yard of the "Lyttelton Times" Office when he dismounted from the bicycle and was accosted by a constable. Armitage bad ridden the bicycle past the saloon twice before going to the "Lyttelton Times'' Office. Gerald Gallagher said that Armitage on October 25 saw him at the Star and Garter Hotel, and said that he had purchased the bicycle, which ho showed, for £9. Walter Leonard Pengelly gave similar evidence. Constable E. F. O'Brien said that Armitage had been unable to remember the name of the man at the Star and Gaiter Hotel who he said had given him the machine. Armitage was under the influence of liquor. 

The accused said that at the Star and Garter Hotel he met a man with whom he had some drinks. The man suggested that he should ask Gallagher and Pengelly if the bicycle was worth £9, and later the man asked him to ride it to the "Lyttelton Times'' Office and leave it there. When arrested he had asked to be allowed to go to the Star and Garter Hotel, but had been refused. Bail had been refused, and up to the last moment he had been under the impression that he would be defended by counsel.

The jury retired for twenty minutes, and retained a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on the ground that the accused did not intend to keep the bicycle or to realise on it. His Honor said that he could not accept the verdict in that form. The essence of the offence was that he intended to deprive the owner of its possession.

The foreman then announced that the jury's verdict was guilty with a recommendation to mercy.

His Honor then read the accused's record, dating back to 1895, when he was fifteen years old. It included several convictions for theft. It also showed that he had been given two years' reformative treatment, and while out on probation he had committed the offence.

Mr Stringer stated that the accused's reformative term would not expire until 1915. His Honor sentenced Armitage to two years' imprisonment, and warned him, that if he committed a similar offence again he would be liable to be dealt with as an habitual criminal. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. on the following day.  -Lyttelton Times, 18/11/1913.

Frederick Armitage is recorded in the "Lyttelton Times" on May 21, 1915, as having enlisted in the army.  His army record shows that he was discharged due to his court conviction (see below) and re-enlisted under the name of Arthur Vance.  After deserting from the army, he re-re-enlisted under his real name.

He was gassed in 1917 and shot in the leg (oddly enough) a few days after the Armistice.

Two men in uniform, Frederick Augustus Armitage and Sydney Robert Cross, pleaded not guilty to the theft of a military overcoat valued at £1 7s. 6d., the property of the New Zealand Government. The evidence, however, was against them, and both were convicted. Armitage, as the principal offender, was sent to gaol for two months, while Cross was sentenced to a month's imprisonment.   -Dominion, 3/12/1915.

A case in which a soldier had been robbed of a wristlet watch came before the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The accused was a young man named Frederick Armitage, and he was defended by Mr Evans. The informant Mark Faise, stated that he had gone to a watch repairer with the accused and another man, and left his watch to be mended, and when he returned for it he found that the accused had been before him, representing that he had authority to get it. In cross-examination he admitted that he had had a few drinks with the accused and his other companion, but denied that he had given money to Armitage to pay for the mending of the watch, and authorised accused to pawn it. The accused was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment.  -NZ Times, 25/5/1916.

Frederick Armitage, charged with obtaining an overcoat, value £l2, from Martha Wilson, at Wellington, on June 7, by false pretences, was remanded to appear at Wellington on Wednesday next. Armitage was also charged with being found on licensed premises (the Al Hotel, Christchurch) during prohibited hours. He pleaded guilty. Sub-Inspector Dew stated that the man was found in the hotel at 9.30 a.m. on Sunday, February 29 last, and gave as an excuse that he wanted to buy some cigarettes. He was fined £l, in default seven days' imprisonment.  -Sun, 17/7/1920.

IMPRISONMENT FOR THEFT. 

Frederick Armitage, thirty-three years of age, admitted stealing an overcoat valued at £l0, the property of C. F. Morkane, but pleaded not guilty to a charge of attempting to steal from a till, the sum of £4 10s, the property of Charles McCarthy, fruiterer, of Manchester Street, Christchurch. The evidence showed that accused entered the shop during the temporary absence of the young lady in charge. On returning she saw a man, whom she identified as accused, bending over the counter trying to open the till. Accused denied ever entering the shop. 

The Magistrate said that apparently Armitage had started stealing very young for there was a conviction against him as far back as 1899. Accused had fifteen convictions for theft against him. On the charge of stealing the overcoat accused was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and on the other charge to three months, the sentences to run concurrently.   -Star, 31/10/1921.

CYCLE THIEF GAOLED. 

Frederick Armitage pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a bicycle valued at £l4, the property of Frederick George Kipple. 

The accused handed a statement to the Bench in which he attributed his lapse to drink. 

The Magistrate: And were your fifteen previous thefts committed while you were drunk? — I suppose so, for the most part they were only petty thefts. 

The Magistrate: Apparently this man is an habitual thief, and he will be sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.  -Star, 14/9/1922.

POLICE COURT.

IDLE AND DISORDERLY

THREE MONTHS’ GAOL

Messrs F. Aisher and C. H. Whitehead, J.’s P., presided at the Police Court this morning. 

Thomas O’Halloran, a second offender, appeared on a charge of having been found drunk in the Square yesterday, he was convicted and fined 10s, in default 48 hours' detention.

George Armitage, alias McLeod, and his brother Frederick A. Armitage, alias Alexander Armitage, appeared on charges of being deemed to be idle and disorderly persons, having insufficient lawful means of support. Both accused pleaded not guilty. 

Detective-Sergeant Quirke stated that both accused were of the criminal type and had arrived in Palmerston North a week ago. They had camped in a deserted hut on Rangitikei line and had been hanging round hotels shepherding drunken people. Neither possessed any money and their presence was a menace to the general public. 

Detective Holmes stated that he had known the accused for the past eight or ten years and they were both of the criminal class and had several previous convictions against them. The only good period they had to their credit was when they were absent from New Zealand with the Expeditionary Forces. 

Detective-Sergeant Quirke gave evidence in connection with the arrest and the condition of the hut in which the accused had been staying. Frederick Armitage had first denied that he had slept in the hut but afterwards admitted that he had stayed there one night The accused were not known to the witness but they were the possessors of lengthy records and were a danger to the community. When arrested George Armitage had 6d, while his brother was penniless. 

Both accused entered the witness box and explained that they had been employed casually on occasions, but finding work difficult of attainment in Wellington had come into the country in an endeavour to procure a position, but with little success. George Armitage stated that he was awaiting the amount of £7 15s, being a war pension instalment which he had not yet received from his agent in Canterbury. 

The accused were convicted and sentenced to three months’ hard labour in Wellington gaol.  -Manawatu Standard, 5/4/1923.

ACCUSED OF BURGLARY.

FIVE MEN ARRESTED. 

THE CHRISTCHURCH ROBBERIES 

(Per Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. In connection with the recent alleged burglaries the police made five arrests yesterday. The accused are: Charles Stanley Dell and Frederick Logie, alleged breaking and entering a shop; and Frederick Augustus Armitage, aged 36; Walter Fraser, Sheriff Harness, aged 33, and Joseph Hogan Byrne, aged 49. Other charges are pending against the last three, and bail was refused. It is understood that gelignite and tools were found in the house occupied by these three.  -Ashburton Guardian, 5/1/1926.

A Police Coup

Christchurch Burglaries 

FIVE MEN ARRESTED. 

STOLEN PROPERTY RECOVERED.

(Special to “Tribune.”) Christchurch, Jan. 5.

The arrest of three men and the secure of a quantity of goods, believed to be stolen, and several sticks of gelignite, comprised a coup by the police at an empty house last evening. An old house at the corner of St. Martin’s and Wilson’s roads, Opawa, had been unoccupied for some timer but had recently been sold for demolition. Complaints as to the place being frequented by men led to the Phillipstown constable mounting watch. Carpenters were at work all day yesterday puling the place down. They ceased work about 4 o’clock, and the policeman remained on. 

Early this morning three men arrived and were taken into custody. The detectives then began an investigation and found a locked cupboard. The key procured, a variety of articles of all values were disclosed. It is alleged that the haul includes £l80 worth of goods taken from a house at Sumner last month, also various articles, including bed linen, which has been missing from neighbouring houses. 

On Sunday night the premises of Packer and Jones, builders, of Churchill street, were entered and an attempt was made to blow open the safe with gelignite. Acting on clues the police have made five arrests within the last 24 hours, including the one at the empty house. 

To-day Frederick Augustus Armitage, aged 36. Walter Fraser Sherif Harneiss. aged 33, and Joseph Hogan Byrne, aged 49, appeared before Mr. Widdowson, S.M.. charged with being found on premises without lawful excuse, breaking and entering a shop and stealing tobacco and razors, and breaking and entering a warehouse and stealing gelignite and detonators. Chief Detective Gibson asked for a remand until January 12, saying that other charges were pending. Bail was refused.  -Hawke's Bay Tribune, 5/1/1926.

BULLS NEWS

COURT NEWS. 

A stranger to the town, Frederick Augustus Armitage, was brought before Messrs. E. H. Levett and L. M. Taverner, J.P’s., on Saturday, and charged with not having lawful visible means of support. Accused was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment. 

On warrant issued at Wanganui, Armitage was further charged with the theft of a suit case and 3 3/4 yds. of silk (valued £5 11s 6d), and was remanded to appear at Wanganui.  -Manawatu Standard, 24/10/1927.

“GET ON THE TRAIN OR GO TO GAOL.”

ACCUSED IS GIVEN CHOICE BY BENCH.

Frederick Armitage (Mr Wyllie), a labourer, aged forty, was charged in the Magistrate’s Court this morning that on December 11 he was deemed to be a rogue and a vagabond in that he had insufficient lawful visible means of support. A second charge of using obscene language was also heard. 

The accused pleaded not guilty to both charges. 

A police constable said that he and another constable saw the accused in Manchester Street, at 4.10 p.m. He stopped two men, and then accosted the witness and a fellow-constable, and asked for money. When he was told who he was accosting, he used the language complained of in a loud tone. There were several people about at the time. The accused had evidently had a few drinks. 

Detective Laugeson gave evidence as to the accused’s previous conviction for being an idle and disorderly person. 

The accused, in evidence, said that he had had work with the Public Works Department. He produced a railway ticket which lad been issued to him by the Department. Previously he had been on a mill. He used the Obscene language because he was drunk and someone bumped into him. 

Senior-Sergeant Shanahan: Have you been knocking round with a man named Carney? — No. 

The Magistrate: What time does your train go this afternoon? 

The accused: Half-past three. sir. 

“Well, see you are on it. If you are still here you’ll get three months.’ Take your choice!” 

The hearing of both charges was adjourned till to-morrow morning.  -Star, 12/12/1929.

"BUILDING ON TWOPENCE."

MAN BEGGING IN CITY. 

OPPORTUNITY TO WORK. 

"Can you build on twopence?" was the question Frederick Augustus Armitage, aged 44, asked a passer-by in Customs Street yesterday. As a result of his request for money from this and other passers-by Armitage was arrested shortly after mid-day, on a charge deeming him to be an idle and disorderly person who begged alms. 

Accused pleaded not guilty at the Police Court. 

One of the witnesses said that when accosted by Armitage, he offered accused a cigarette, but he refused it, stating that he wanted money. 

Constable Shannon, who arrested Armitage, said accused had no money when he was searched. 

Accused: If you will give me a chance I'll get back to the country at once. I remembered nothing about yesterday as I was under the influence of liquor. 

Detective Sergeant Kelly said he was a man with a bad criminal history. 

The Samaritan officer of the Salvation Army said he would look after Armitage for a week and give him work until he left for the country. 

"All right, but make him work," said Mr. Hunt, in convicting and ordering Armitage to come up for sentence if called upon within six months.  -Auckland Star, 6/5/1932.

A sentence of two-months' imprisonment was  imposed on Frederick Augustus Armitage, a labourer, aged 44, for using obscene language in Frederick street. On a further charge of wilfully breaking two panes of glass, the accused was fined £1, in default 14 days' imprisonment.

Senior-Sergeant Dempsey said that the accused went to a relative's house when he was under the influence of liquor. He was asked to leave and when doing so he broke two panes of glass with a stick. He also used the language complained of, and it could be heard from the street.  -Evening Post, 28/10/1932.

WINDOW SMASHED.

LABOURER'S DELIBERATE ACT 

Arrested last night on a charge of committing mischief by wilfully breaking a pane of glass and a glass sign, of the total value of £5, the property of the Auckland Returned Soldiers' Association, a labourer named Frederick Augustus Armitage, aged 46, appeared before Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M., this morning in the Police Court. 

Armitage pleaded guilty. 

Senior Sergeant Flanagan said that Armitage visited the rooms of the Returned Soldiers' Association last night. "Whatever happened there, he had to leave," said Mr. Flanagan, "but he went into Albert Street and returned with a piece of steel, half an axle of a motor car. This he threw through the window and a glass sign. It was deliberately done." 

Armitage's only excuse was that three men "tackled" him, and lie picked up the piece of iron. 

Remarking that Armitage had been in Court on many occasions in the past, the magistrate fined him £2 and ordered him to pay for the damage done, in default one month's imprisonment. Armitage was allowed one week in which to pay.  -Auckland Star, 10/4/1934.

POLICE COURT NEWS

LABOURER IMPRISONED 

A labourer, Harry Mafeking May, aged 33, appeared for sentence before Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the Police Court yesterday, on a charge of vagrancy. In sentencing accused to two months' imprisonment, the magistrate said he would have given the man a term of reformative detention if he had the power to do so. What accused wanted was steady work. 

Frederick Augustus Armitage, aged 50, pleaded guilty to being found without lawful excuse on premises in Vincent Street, City. Accused was sentenced to a month's imprisonment.  -NZ Herald, 11/10/1934.

MAN'S FATAL INJURIES

RECEIVED BEFORE ARREST 

MENTION OF A FALL 

ACCIDENTAL DEATH VERDICT 

The case of a man under arrest who died from injuries received before he was taken into custody was dealt with yesterday before Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., coroner, at an inquest concerning the death of Frederick Augustus Armitage, aged 46. 

Evidence was given by Dr. J. R. Ritchie, of the Auckland Hospital, that he examined deceased, who then appeared to be in a drowsy condition, on October 18. Deceased had mild bronchitis, and signs of cerebral disturbance became more pronounced. Deceased died on October 20.

Joseph Ravlich said that deceased had stayed for several days at his home in Federal Street. On October 8 witness heard moans from deceased's room and found him lying on the bed. There was an injury to deceased's nose, and blood was noticed on his clothing. Deceased, asked about the injury, said, "Oh, it's nothing," but added something about a "scrap." Witness said deceased had never chopped wood at his place. A sister of deceased, Mrs. Louisa Bradley, of Wellington, staying in Vincent Street, City, said deceased called on her on October 9 and he then seemed in a "queer" condition and complained of not feeling well. He said he had not been fighting and accounted for the bruise on his nose by saying he had been chopping wood. Deceased also said he had fallen on the roadway, but he did not want to see a doctor. Deceased was dazed and when he was playing patience witness had the impression that he was playing as a child would do, "with all the cards the wrong way."

Constable Burdett gave evidence of arresting deceased on the evening of October 9 on a charge of being unlawfully on premises. Deceased explained that he had got into the wrong house, but he made no comment regarding his health. In a statement, deceased said he had come from Wellington on October 2 and had no money or work. He had been ill the previous evening through too much beer. 

Detective Finlay said that, in spite of inquiries, he had not been able to ascertain how deceased received head and face injuries. Witness had received information about a man of deceased's description having been lying in a section off Federal Street, but investigation had yielded nothing about this matter. Deceased had had no complaints to make at the gaol. 

The coroner said the post-mortem examination had disclosed a cerebral hemorrhage and a fracture of the skull, a peculiar feature being a hemorrhage on the right frontal lobe and an injury at the back of the head. The pathologist was inclined to think the hemorrhage was suffered in a fall, and deceased had said he had fallen. There was some suggestion made of a fight, but deceased had mentioned a fall. A verdict was returned that death was due to cerebral hemorrhage and a fracture of the skull, suffered through deceased falling on the pavement accidentally.  -NZ Herald, 13/11/1934.