TWO MEN FINED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 296, 27 September 1935, Page 6

TWO MEN FINED

ILLEGALLY ON PREMISES.

TWO DECISIONS! RESERVED. CASES HEARD IN COURT. There was a brief list of cases for hearing by Mr C. R. Orr Walker, S.M., in the Ashburton Magistrate's Court this morning, but the hearings lasted nearly three hours.

Thomas Dawson Childs and William Gordon- Grow, of Ashburton, Arthur Thompson, of Waterton, and, William Francis Tilson, of Hinds, were charged that they were found on the premises of William Joseph O’Connor, at Ashburton, at a time when (Sergeant J. F. Cleary, in pursuance of a warrant to search, entered O’Connor’s premises and seized liquor. It was alleged that the men were illegally dealing in liquor at the time.

Childs and Crow, through, Mr Drury pleaded .uot guilty, and Thompson also pleaded not guilty. Tilson did not appear. Sergeant Cleary detailed the raid made on the premises and said he saw Childs as he was standing at the counter. He had in his hands a parcel comprising two bottles of ale, while a similar parcel stood on the counter in front of him. Childs stated that the ale was the balance of an order which he had given in from 4 to 8 weeks previously, and paid for at the time. Witness pointed out to him that there was no name on the parcels. O’Connor showed an entry in his hook about six weeks before, when Childs had 1 given an order. Witness pointed out that the order was not signed. In regard to Crow, witness said that this defendant was sitting at a table with a small glass of stout before him. He had stated that O’Connor had “shouted” for him.

In Thompson’s case, witness said that this defendant walked into the premises while the police were in charge, explaining that he went in to order two bottles of beer.

Tilson, witness said, went into the premises and asked for bis order while the police were there. O’Connor told defendant that the order had not arrived.

Constable J. E. R. Myers gave evidence in corroboration.

Mr Drury said that in the case of IChilds the Police evidence had not thrown the onus on him to prove that he was not on the premises legally. He had called to collect ale which he was perfectly entitled to take, he having ordered it some six weeks before. Childs stated, in the box, that he went to the premises to collect four bottles of ale, the balance of an order given six weeks before. He had paid for all the liquor when he gave in the order and collected ale as he required it between the two dates mentioned. He had not had a- drink on the premises and no money had passed. The order was for 12 bottles. ■ To the Magistrate: The liquor was taken from a shelf, on which there were other parcels of similar size. William Joseph O’Connor corroborated the evidence of the handing in of the order by Childs. The orders were sent to the hotel, which parcelled them up and tagged them. To Sergeant Cleary: The parcels were marked with the purchasers names inserted on a separate slip o paper. He found some of these slips on the floor after the Police had left the premises. J _ l , . Giving evidence, Crow stated that lio called at the premises because he had received a message from O’Connor to call and see him. They arranged to go to the pictures and O’Connor poured a class of stout for him. Before he could drink it, the Police walked, in. I'o the Magistrate: He went to the premises on business, but the nature of it was not disclosed' by O'Connor. O’Connor stated that he leit a note at Crow’s home ,asking him to call on business, but it was cleared up before Crow arrived. Witness was interested in aviation and he asked Crow to go to the theatre to see “Wings in the Dark.” He had his coat on and was about to leave when the police arrived. To the Magistrate: The stout poured out for Crow was on the table in witness’s private office. Thompson stated that he went to the premises to order beer. He had never ordered beer previously. He had arranged for the beer to he picked up by a mailman the next day or whenever if was ready. Decision was reserved in the cases of Thompson and Tilson, the Magistrate stating that, he wished to go into the question" of whether they had been “found on the premises si t the time the police raided.” The Magistrate said that if the hotel proprietor whom O’Connor represented had been charged with having sold liquor illegally off his premises m Christchurch, he would have been convicted on the evidence given. The Magistrate said that therefore, Childs must have been dealing illegally in the matter of the purchase of liquor. The two parcels handed to him were obviously not the actual ones appropriated tc his order at the hotel. Childs was fined £2, with 10s costs. In regard to the case of Crow, . the Magistrate said the main part of the “business” referred to seemed to he the having of a drink. Crow was fined £2 with 10s costs.

Mine Manager Fined) £5. George Stevenson Harris, of Mount Somers, was charged that, being manager and fireman deputy at the Blackburn coal mine, he did fail, within the two hours immediately before the commencement of work in a shalt, to inspect, with a locked safety lamp, every part of the mine in which workmen were to work or pass during the shift. Harris was further charged that, being the manager and shot-firer of the mine, he did fail to keep deton-

ators, until about to he used for the charging of the shot-hole, in a suitable case or box, securely fastened- separate from any other explosive. Defendant pleaded guilty.

The Mines Inspector stated that the regulations under which the charges were laid were the most important of the Mining Regulations, and the precautions set out had not been carried out. Twenty-four pounds of gunpowder were lying on the floor of the mine. This quantity) was much above the regulation quantity. Defendant said the detonators and the powder were not lying about for long. He was in a hurry at the time. In regard to the inspection, there was no gas in the mine. The Inspector said the inspection should have been made against falling in.

The Magistrate said the case was a serious one. The careless handling of explosives was serious. The Inspector said that defendant had previously been convicted for a breach of the regulations. Defendant was fined £2, with 12s costs and £1 Is expenses on the first charge and £3 and 12s costs on the second charge.

The Magistrate said that any future breach by defendant would he met with a heavy penalty.

Civil Business. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the case of Ashburton Hospital Board (Mr Woods) y. J. B. Osborne, £5 10s, with £1 10s 6d costs.

Claim for Damages. Benjamin McKay, of Mayfield, proceeded against David Roberts, sawmill hand, of Valetta, claiming £5 (made up of damage to turnips £3 10s, and loss of three lambs and consequent damage to health of ewe £1 10s)’. Plaintiff alleged that on or about July 21, defendant entered plaintiff’s farm at Valetta, and did wrongfully or negligently; leave open a gate, thereby permitting and allowing plaintiff’s sheep to go into a paddock of turnips which were damaged, and in which paddock rabbit poisoners had laid poison which caused injury to the sheep. Mr W. H. Woods appeared for plaintiff and Mr L. A. Charles for defendant.

Plaintiff stated that he ascertained that the gates of the paddock containing his sheep were closed as he knew that poison was being laid for rabbits. The following day he found that the turnips had been badly bitten into and trampled down. The sheep had been taken out of the turnip paddock by a neighbour. He had seen defendant go across his property on foot, and had not mado any protest as he was not doing any damage. He wrote to defendant- stating that lie had learned that he (defendant) had gone over his land in a car and had left gates open. Defendant had denied going over the land and put the blame on the rabbiters, but later admitted liability. He had promised a first payment of £4 os. To Mr Charles: The rabbiters were still in the paddock when he closed the gates. They came out when he -was a lew chains down the road. He saw them close the gate after them. When he went to the paddock two days later he put the dogs round the sheep and saw the symptoms of strychnine poisoning. Some of them had the staggers. Ho denied that the workmen at the mill nearby used his land to reach tire road. He knew that people had used the land and they went through the gate in question. When lie spoke to defendant lie did not refer to the gate having been left open. He had no admission to the effect that the gate had been left open by defendant. Ho used a little bluff on defendant. To Mr Woods: The gate .the .rabbiters went through was not the one the sheep went through. To the Magistrate: Anyone else going over l;is property would go through the gate that liad been left open. James Leslie Hall,' a mill hand, stated that he saw tho sheep on the turnips, and, with another man, put them off. One ram was very sick. Later he spoke to defendant, and the latter said, in reference to the sheep being on the turnips, “that must have been me.” He had added that lie liad gone through the gate, intending to go back that way, hut had not done so. To Mr Charles: He knew that other people besides defendant went across tho farm. There were 13 men at the mill.

Aiurray Digby, farm hand and rahbiter, said there were no dead rabbits in the turnips. He thought about half the turnips had been destroyed. To Mr Charles: He considered about one-eighth of tho turnips had been bitten.

William Henry Graham, shepherd, said he was shown the sheep which were taken off the turnips, and ho detailed the condition of some of them. It was akin to the condition following abortion, but it could have been caused by poison. To Mr Charles: He had not had any experience of poisoned sheep. He was perhaps guessing at the fact that these particular sheep had been poisoned. In the box, defendant stated that lie had been crossing the farm for 12 months by car. All cars at the mill (four) used the same route. On the day in question he went through three gates and closed them behind him. Ho lad no recollection of saying to Hall, “That must have been me.” Plaintiff had told him he must pay damages, but witness said be did not see why he should. To the Magistrate: He agreed to pay £4 5s to save a lot of trouble. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the sum claimed, with 12s Court costs, £1 6s solicitor’s fee, and £llss Cd witnesses’ expenses. Arthur Douglas Ford, of Christchurch, as assignee of certain hook debts from the Methven Transport Co., Ltd., of Methven, proceeded against Samuel Andrew, of Ashburton, and another, to recover £lO 13s Gd for carting. Judgment for plaintiff for £2 10s, with 15s costs, was given against S. Andrew.