MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22696, 28 April 1939, Page 16

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THURSDAY (Before Mr E. C. Lewey. SAL) CHARGE DISMISSED The theft of ship's hatch-covers ■was alleged in a charge against Victor T?pgfnalri Bowling, a storeman, aged 33. Mr Roy Twyneham defended, and Detective-Sergeant J. Bickerdike prosecuted. . , Bowling was charged that between November. 1937. and October, 1333, at Lvttelton. he had stolen eight hatchcovers to the value of £lOl 13s Id. the property of unknown persons. The first'witness. Thomas Dovey, a wharf labourer, objected to questions put to him by Detective-Sergeant Bickerdike, and he pleaded privilege when asked' if he had had dealings over hatch-covers with Bowling. w i tress had had no dealings with the accused, he said. He had never discussed sucn dealings with him and had had _no more than passing conversations with him. When asked if he had received any hatch-covers from Bowling- Dovey pleaded privilege. , , . The Magistrate said that ne failed to <=ee the of witness's objection to the cuestion. The detective-sergeant said 'that no police action was hemg taken against Dovey. Mr Twyneham. supported the plea, which was not recognisec. fay the Magistrate until Dovey said that he was afraid that he might incriminate himself as an offender. . The detective-sergeant asked permission. to ■treat Dovey as a hostile witness. Mr Twyneham objected, declaring that the mere act of pleading privilege did not constitute hostility. This objection was upheld by the Court.

i Dovev said that his memory was: i clear. He had never discussed a trans- ■ 1 action with the accused, and he had, never received property or money ■ 1 from him. He had never been witn ■ [ anyone else when such a transaction | was being discussed. . ' j 1 Harold Percival Ashton, a carrier; operating between Christchurch and Diamond Harbour, gave evidence of receiving eight hatch-covers, seven of which were delivered at his house, the other which he picked up from the home of Thomas Dovey. He had sold; seven of them. • William Thomas House, manager of the Butler Timber Company, said that; he had bought three tarpaulin covers i from Ashton in 1933. Norman Stev-I enson. Rov Palmer, John George Hat- : per. and Merman Douglas Miller, all, registered carriers having depots in; Christchurch, gave evidence of buy-, ing covers from Ashton. In all these, cases the transactions had been made with Ashton, who had received all; moneys. Some of the tarpaulins were; produced in Court. | Thev were identified by Thomas j Black,* agent in Christchurch for that; brand of cover, and by Walter Scott, j an emplovee of the Shaw Savill and, Albion Company. Scott said that the; covers would be folded on deefc dur-j ing the dav when ships in port were! loading, and at night they would oe; spread over the hatches. He had j never heard of covers being sold byj shipping companies before, either new. or second-hand. I Detective W. A. Parish read a state- j ment given to him by the accused j Bowling, who had said that he knew, nothing of the covers. He had not; bought or sold any and knew of nO| one who had done so. i In applying for a dismissal of the information. Mr Twyneham submitted, that no prima facie case had been; established. Since Ashton had stepped j from the witness stand, there had been > no mention even of accused’s name by[ witnesses. Apart from the evidence of, the first three witnesses there was not; one shred of evidence, he said, to connect the accused with the tarpaulins. “It seems to me that the_ wrong person is in the dock." be said. “I don t know why Ashton, who is here, is not' in the dock. The evidence of an, accomplice alone cannot be accepted; in proof unless it is corroborated. -; submit that no connexion has been j proved between the sheets and the, ! “I do net wish to find holes in the . case for the police,” said the Magistrate. “but there is a gap completely: unbridged between the theft and the' delivery to Ashton, and there _is not . sufficient evidence to commit this man; for triaL” The information was dis-. missed. ASSAULT OM CUSTOMER Donald Campbell, a dry cleaner, was, ordered to pay costs when he was convicted for assaulting James Alfred Webb. Webb said that when fee had complained about some trousers that Campbell had cleaned, Campbell had struck him on the head with a large: piece of wood. Campbell alleged that representatives of large dry-cleaning firms in the i city had been trying to put him out' of business by finding fault with his work. UNREGISTERED FIREARM i Donald Salisbury Lamberton was| fined 20s for being in possession of an unregistered firearm for longer than, seven days. , | On a similar charge, Joseph Francis ( Yagodzenski was convicted and fined. 10s. ’ BICYCLE TAKEN ■ Arthur George Henry Sunnex was. charged with the theft of a bicycle; valued at £3, the property of unknown persons Mr R. Twyneham said that; tiie bicycle bad apparently been abandoned In a right-of-way whence Sunnex had taken it. Mo owner had; been found. < Sunnex was ordered to come up for’ sentence if called on within two years.; REMANDED ! Ethel Lucy Hocking was remanded’ to May 4 on the charge of stealing a! [rug, valued at £4 4s, the property of; Hay's. Ltd Bail was allowed in ac-« cused’s own recognisance of £IOO, with, one surety of £ 100, and a condition; that she report daily to the police. j DRUNKENNESS Archibald Stewart was convicted of ; drunkenness and ordered to pay costs.; BREACH OF PROBATION ORDER ! Edward Francis Nicholls was sen-: fenced to 30 days' imprisonment with; hard labour for a breach of a probation ! order. I FALSE PRETENCES | Foster George Dacre was charged; with attempting to obtain £5 9s from: Percy Gilbert Stringer by false pretences. Mr H. W. Thompson appeared for Dacre. s Accused was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard la-1 hour. On a charge of drunkenness' he;, was convicted and discharged. !- CIVIL COURT | (Before Mr F. F. Reid, SAL) ; UNDEFENDED CLAIMS | Judgment for plaintiff by default was j given in each of the following civil; claims;—F. E. Owers and Co. v. P. j Rap ley, £l3 3s sd; D. S- Thompson.! carrying on business as the D. S. j Thompson School of Welding, v. Ron-; laid Hart. £l7 ss; K_ More and C 0.,! i Ltd, v. Cyril Lambert Jones, £lO Hs | 6d; F. D. Kesteven v. W. Fitzgerald, £44; Radio Finance Company. LtdU v. Ernest John Foiley. £2l ss. and £lO hirage, or possession; Butler Cycle Works v. J, TindalL £4 17s 6d; F, W. Carter v. J. Matheson, £2: Gordon and Gotch, Ltd- v. A. Welsh. £2 15s; the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants of New Zealand Industrial Union of Workers v J. J. Hanna, £2 9s; Verne Collins and Co_ Ltd- v. A. J. Edwards. £9 3s 8d; Messrs Clifford Mannings. Geoffrey Eric Mannings, and James Mannings, trading as Mannings Bros- Wharua Dairy, v. Francis Joseph Le Beau. £1 3s; Ball ins Breweries ' M.Z.*. Ltd— v. F. Clements, 19s lid; Douglas Warren Russell v. William Arthur Andrews. £5 ss; George William Reginald Osborne v. Henry Brydon. £96 12s 2d; J. W. Pender v. R. Matheson, £l3 10s; His Majesty the King v. Richard Hamilton Campbell £27 16s Id: Horace Norman Talbot and Leslie Fosberv Nancarrow. trading as Talbot and Nancarrow, v. John Edward Owen. £4 10s. On a judgment summons. K. M. Darby was ordered to nay Corde*"v Wells and Company. Ltd- £8 10s forthwith, in default eight days’ nnorisonmenL warrant to be suspended if IQs a week is paid.

JUDGMENT RESERVED The Magistrate reserved his decision in a elafm by McKenzie and Willis, Ltd.. land agents, against L. A. Franklin. of 327 Ferry road, for £36 ss. as agent’s commission earned in the sale of Franklin’s property or alternatively for services rendered as agent in the sale. Mr I_ J. H. Hensley represented McKenzie and Willis. For the defendant. Mr R. L- Saunders submitted that the plaintiff firm was employed to finance the deal and not to sell the property. The finance was not arranged.