THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16985, 6 November 1920, Page 3

THE COURTS.

_ * SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Herdman.) "WHEAT CONTROL OFFENCES. Ecx (Mr A. T. Donnelly, Crown Prosecutor) v. bloody, Annand and Company, Timaru, grain and produce merchants, and Francis Nelligan, Pleasant I J oint, farmer (Mr YV. I). (Jump bell), was an action. brought under the Herniation o£ Trade and Commerco Act, 1911, ill reepcct of certain transactions in wheat in 1010. All tho defendants admitted tho offences. Mr Donnelly sketched the provisions of the Act, under which the proceedings were taken and described briefly the ecliemo under which the Government took ovor tho control of the i wheat grown in. tho Dominion, and nppointed ' certain «.im and produce merchants in dif- ' ferent centres as brokers for the Government. The wheat regulations issued in 1919 fixed tho prico of good milling wheat, on and after October, at Gs 9d per bushel; and. of wheat that wag not graded as "good milling" ! at Gs 7d per bushel. Moody, Annand and j Company were Government and they wcro charged with having aided and abetted in getting prices in -excess of the gazetted Ijrice in of five different parcels of wheat. The defendant Nelligan was charged with having sold four separato parcels at , prices in e.xcess of the gazetted price. In two instances the excess was Is 3id per bushel, in ono instance tho excess was lid 1 per bushel, -and in another Is lid per .bushel, j The separato charge against Moody, Annand j and Co., was in respect of a parcel for which 9d per bushel.in excess of the gazetted price "was" obtained. Nelligan's v/hcal graded as "good miTing." lu'ihe view of tho Wheat Controller IVelligan's off-mces were the more serious, as Moody, Annand and' Co. depended on tho euccess of their business on their relations witii their farming clients, and wWe placed in the position of" running the. risk of losing Nelligan's custom if they did not carry out his instructions. Nelligan's offences wcro regarded by tho wheat authorities , as deliberate defiance of the regulations. Nelligan. know the prico ho was entitled to, and while other farmers took tho prico fixed ho was not coing to • ta'ko it if ho could get a higher price, and practically coerced tlio brokers into aiding him to do so. His Honour: Can the Government cancel their license as Government brokers? Mr Donnellv: That has been considered by tho Wheat Controller, who, in view of the circumstances, has decided not to cancel their license. Complaints had reached tho Wheat ■ Controller's office that Nelligan had talked of his success in evading the regulations. The consequences of ono farmer evading the regulations were serious: it caused dissatisfaction among other farmers in t.he district, and might result in less wheat being sown, and tho. quantity of wheat produced would be considerably lessened. As to penalties, the Crown submitted that Moody, Annand and Company were in a position of trust, and their offence galled for more than a but not for a vindictive, penalty. In Nelli"•an's case a sub?tantir.l penalty was for in order to protect farmers who obeyed tho law, and to bring homo to those who aid not that it would be expensive to them. Mr Campbell said that some of the charges in tho Crown's statement of claim had been abandoned, and the statement of defenco_ admitted certain chargcs. Nelligan s wheat was thrc-shed in May, 1919, and :n accordance with the regulations, it was offered to tho Government. If it had been accepted the price would liavo been Gs Cid per bushel j Tor milling wheat'. ' Tho Government Grader . classed it as not -milling wheat, but as fowl j ■vhoat. It was suggested by counsel that i t'lis was done to relie.e the Government from buying Nelligan's wheat. In May 1919, it was anticipated that there would bo a. surnius of wheat, but by November, 19i9, it wag discovered that- there was a deficiency, anc; thero was enquiry for wheat. Nelllgan, in offering his wheat, added to The prico fixed by tho regulations storage and charges for receiving it into store, and for delivering it— charges that resulted from the rejection ohis wheat in May, and which would not have been insured but for that rejection. Counse. stated that in other instances the Wheat Con- ' )'-oiler had allowed such charges to be added although he had no legal authority to do so. / iter adding the charges and interest nelligan did not get one penny more in November than he would have got in May. lhe i j prices received by Nellignn were not iso.atod : i instances; ■ it was -that these j, ' prices were being offered and being got, and Nelli-an thought that if other people were | '■etting them there was no reason why ho ; should' not get them; but he did not know j ■ when the wheat left Timaru what prico he ; ; would get for it. If Nelligan had not been j an Irishman ho would have known that wheat graded as not good milling wheat, thoueh described as 'freo wheat," _was not f'-ce 'for him to sell at any price in excess of tho gazetted price. The difference between the amount realised in November as compared with what would have been realised in Mav had been worked out and showed that ii the wheat had been bought by tho Government in May NLdligan would have been £5 better off: eo that as far as : was concerned, he lipal made- nothing i out of it. As to Moody, Annand and Company's "abetting," counsel ct-itcd that *he I'JiO regulations contained r.o reference to shipping a? being an olemeM in aiding and ab-sttinf the commission of an offence; the firm hid a. copy of tha bu no copy of the Act, and did not kuow_ tnat were- infringing the pro.-isions of the Act. In iho 1919 icejfulation* there was m piovtsion made as to the- pric*;* to bo t>y ietr.ilers for fowl wheat, though '20 Crov.ll haa shown him such a pro'.i-ion m the 1918 regulations, under which the retai.er was entitled to add 15 per cent, plus trms'.t charges. Nelligan's wheit was to poul-try-keopers at a price which was the same that retailors would have charged. Co-miel submitted <hat in rospect of remission of I penalties the 1014 Act provided po j lrn i' t - aiK f j that if was within the power Ci the Court j to remit the whole. . , , Hi.; Honour, in giving ;irJ anient. saj-t ir.nl Mcodv, Aiin.md and Company had aamsttod that "tli ey were guilty on five /-barges 1:1 respect of which t i-.ev wore iir.b:e to fines aggregating £-25C0: Nelligan had udmitted that he wp.s Aiiltv of four chargtt m re-jpec'. 01 whica he was liable to fines aggregating £2000. Theso offenc->5, i: thev could be called offences, rru=t bo reswHed :■* s-ri-'is, evi, dently, it was tho policy of the Government 0. the country to cor.tro, the whol--> ri " -e w;-ea.t and the of such a sc'icrae d'p-ndc-d on all thow parsons concerned with tlie growing nnd sehir.g of wh-at complying strictlv wi'h the regiiV.inn-i made by Government from time to tme. Growers .'.nd brokers must clearly UTtders'.and. that thescxeculatioila must be ttricfly obscircd. Far-

s. niight consider such legislation irritating m that it pi-evented them getting higher pnec3; but, rightly or wrongly, the Govern-r~°r-l nia.dt> up thoir mind as to *hoso rfgu.ations. His Honour said that i.e was qiu'.o prepared to accept Mr Campbell's yiatoHte:*: that t.'ie <_■ fi-?r.ce committed' by M<xx'.y, Annand and Company wag r.ot grave as the Drenches of tho regulations committed by Ne.iigun, and he proposed to distinguish W-twe-su tli? two as_ to tho penalty they should P-> • It might be that Moody, Annand and Company did not, in a Berrse, appreciate the fac: t'hat :n doin? what they did they were committing- an offence: nevertheless t.h--v Lad doing what they did. arr! imist bo punished. In the esse of No!' i ~ i r. it appeared to hh Honour from what he had hoard that he had deliberately defied the rosrulations. in his case he would remit £-iSG in txepect rj caoh charge, making tlie tine £50 in respect of • ch charge, or a total of £200. in the- ca-o of Moody. Annand and Company, it '-ras a Ktiw for tho Government to whether tliev should oontin*ie_ to act ;i3 Government brokers. In the circumstance, th" firm would have remitted the sum of £ in resp?ct of each c-hrrge, making the fine £10 in of each charge, or a tof.-il of £50. Judgment was enferod up accordingly, defendants being ordered to pay cost= on the lov.-i=t •» ALLEGED BREACH OF CONDITIONS OF LEASE. John Henry CooksCey, formerly of Hillsboiough, no-.v of Keicliffs (Mr F. S. Wilding'/ claimed damages from the Glenmore Brick and Tile Company ("Mr Geo. ilaj-per) in respcct of altered bre:ich of the conditions of the leaso of plaintiff's brick-yard. Tiic sum of £2J5 was claimed in of .repairing file kiln, £40 for damage to (iryin™ fliels. £19 las £d proportion of rate?, and £10 nominai dainajes for failure to manufactured bricks. Tli? lease was for five years, and was entered into in 1915, and expired a lew weeks ago. Tho cas> was heard before hia Honour and a jury of four. Evidence was siven in support of the claim and al?o in opposition to it. Counsel addressed the juiy and his Honour rammed up. The jury, after a retirement of half an hour, refurn"d with a verdict for p'aiuidff: in reelect of the kibi £150, in respect of pu.sr mill £5, and in lespect of rnt?s £19153 lid, total £171 153 11;1. Costs were allowed as per seals, witnesses' expenses to bo fixed by the Registrar. The Court adjourned till "Wednesday at 10 a.m. MAGISTERIAL. FRIDAY. (Beforo Mr V. G. Day, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS AND ASSAULT. Eclward Stanley Brown, a native of the Enat Indies, was charged with drunkenness and with having assaulted Horace Peter Samuel SlcGregor. Defendant was convicted and discharged for drunkenness, and was fined £1 on the charge of assault. BY-LAW CASES. Herbert Vickery and Eric Baker were each fined ss, and Douglas Jlartin 10s for cycling on footpaths. Frederick John Hanna was fined 10s for having left a car without lights, and Charles Jones and Gilbert Hall Burton were each fined 10s for having left their motor-cars unattended." A charge against Albert Salter Goodhirid (Mr C. S. Thomas), of hitving driven at an excessive speed round a corner, was dismissed without prejudice, and ft charge against Reginald N. Ellis, for driving at a dangerous speed, was dismissed. William Henry Hecker was fined £1 for driving a motor-cycle at a dangerous speed, and Douglas E. Taylor, similarly charged, was fined £2. Dr. J. K. Thomas (Mr Sargent) -waß convicted and ordered to pay costs for having exceeds the speed limit in Woolston, and Leonard Nankivejl was fined £2 for having exceeded' tho speed-limit in New Brighton, and 10s for not using a silencer. Alfred Willey was fined 10s for a breach of the Motor Act through failure to.notify the thango of- ownership of a motor. John Shorthall (Mr P. J. Amodeo) was con-

-' victed and discharged on a charge of r ing a nio:or-car at a dangerous speed, and was fined £5 for having been drunk while » in charge of a motor. s ; BREACHES OF SLAUGHTERING ACT.- * ' Alfred Clnpham -was convicted and ordered ■ to pay £2 9s costs for having killed a calf at " a place other than a registered abattoir, and was ocr.victed and fined £2 for having Bold " tho meal so slaughtered. ! j ; THEFT.' _ ' ? ; Jessie McEwen, alias Harvey, alias ? wards, pleaded not gui.ty to a charge of havi in" s:o.en a wallet, containing a Post Of- , fice Savings Bank book, a £1 note, and sundrv papers to *ho value of £1. the property oi John Dawson. Accused was convicted and sentenced t-o imprisonment for three ( [5 months, the warrant to be suspended if she | n 'stays for sis months in tho Salvation Army t Home. j , DISMISSED. - ! Robert Douglas Bamberry, nged 63, was - charged with having committed an indecent a assault on a girl, aged 6 years nud_ 11 months, - at Svdenham Park on October 25th. Mr ir. > J. Amodeo appeared for. accused. The f Magistrate said that the evidence was not s ' re!fable enough to warrant him committing j the accused for trial, and the case was dismissed. (Before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M.) INDECENT EXPOSURE. - Edmund Campbell, a youth, aged IGJ years, 7 ' pleaded guilty to a charge of having coms mii ted indecent exposure. _Mr Alpers ap- *- peared tor defendant. His Worship said that f no good puroose cou"d be seired by sending i tho lad to caol. He would be convicted and S ordered to come up for sentence when called 9 upon, and was ordered to report montlily to - his family's medical adviser. Dr. Lester, ana i. weekly to the Probation Officer and tho Rev. 1 Dean Eegnault for a period of 12 months. 1 Through an error it was stated in "Tho Pres=" oil Tuesday that a prohibition order 1 had been issued at the Magistrate's Court on ■ Monday against Edward Trcvelvn Martin. r The fact was that as a statutory first offender ho was convicted and discharged for 1 drunkenness. " ASHBUHTON. j (Before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M.) ' W. F. Barlow and Charles Judge were each ' fined 10s with 7s costs fcr leaving motor-cars 3 unattended. A. F. Raynish was fined 10s, with 7s costs, for ridiug a motor-cyclo at night without a lights Wm. alah was fined 10s-, with 7s costs, for riding .a bicyclo on a footpath. George Hipping was ordered to pay £18 19s, arrears on a maintenance order, forthwith, in default 14 days' imprisonment, the order to bo suspended so long as defendant pays at tho rate of £2 per month. a Judgment by default was given for plaing tiffs in the case Jones and Moore (Mr Kenr nedv) v. M. M. Manson, £6 9s 3d; the Comj missioner of Taxes v. "W. Gray, £6 Is 4d; q same v. E. G. Lovett, £76 Is 3d; same v. "W. M. Lumsden, £20 lGs 3d; Dodgo v. J. Wesley, Bs. c ; " IN other"places. g WELLINGTON CRIMINAL SESSION. (PHES3 ASSOCIATION TELEGKAM.) "WELLINGTON, Nov. 5. At tho Supreme Court, Ella Dorothy Boys, 1 charged with theft at Opaki, was put on proi bation for two years on one charge and - ordered to come up for sentence on the other e charge, if called on. John Henry Morgan, i charged with theft, was sentenced to two vears' hard labour, tho sentence to be cumur lative on tho two'.vo months ho is now servi ing. Clnirles Manze, for breaking and enter- , ing, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment; and Georgo Frederick Haigh, for theft - and forgery, to three years' reformative treat- ? ment. ? CHARGE OF PROFITEERING. . N DUNEDIN, Nov. 5. The Court reserved its judgment, after 1 hearing legal argument, in tho case of W. 0 Penrose, a draper, who was charged with • profiteering in connexion with the sale of a skein of wool.