MAGISTRATE’S COURT Man Fined £10 For Being Illegally On Premises

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27603, 9 March 1955, Page 10

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Man Fined £10 For Being Illegally On Premises

Thomas Hedley Stocker, aged 32, a motor mechanic, who appeared before Mr L. N. Ritchie, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday for sentence on a charge of being found without lawful excuse but in circumstances that did not disclose the intention to commit any other offence on the enclosed premises at 6 Kauri street on February 28, was fined £lO. When asked if he had anything to say, Stocker told the Court that he went into the garden with no intention of doing anything other than hr had said in his explanation. He <.»- not realise there was anything serious in it. He could have got away from the occupier if he had wished, but he did not attempt it. “You have a very unenviable record, Stocker,” said the Magistrate. “You have 30 previous convictions, though nine of them were for motoring offences when you were a youth. You have been sentenced to no less a term of imprisonment than five and a half years, five of those years resulting from sentences by the Supreme Court. Now you are married and have four young children. I have been informed that when you were in the armed forces you were an unsatisfactory soldier and a bad influence on others. There are redeeming features. Your last conviction was 10 years ago; your wife appears to have had a mellowing influence on you; you do not now associate with undesirable persons; and you spend your leisure hours in your own garden. I do not believe your story explaining why you went on to the premises. I believe that, as the police, allege, you set out to be a ‘peeping Tom.’ It was fortunate indeed that you were frustrated in your design. I am prepared to give you one last chance and I will not send you to prison on this occasion. . . .” “Thank you very much, your Honour,” said Stocker. “I am going to impose a very stiff fine to show you that crime does not pay,” continued the Magistrate. MAN ASSAULTED WIFE Ronald Hubert Cruthers, aged 38, a butcher, pleaded guilty to charges that on March 7 he assaulted Winifred Jean Cruthers * and that he also assaulted Anne Dorothy Cruthers. He was fined £5 on the first charge and convicted and discharged on the second. Sub-Inspector J. C. Fletcher, who prosecuted, said it was a case of a man assaulting his wife and daughter. At 8.5 pun. on Monday, the police were called to the Cruthers’s home. Apparently there had been a “red hot” altercation. Cruthers and his wife had six children. He seemed to have treated his wife very cruelly, but Monday night was more than she could bear. She said her husband punched her on the nose and kicked her on the ribs. Their daughter, Anne, who had been doing homework, went into the room, and her father struck her, too. “I was in the wrong. I have absolutely no excuse to offer,” said Cruthers when asked if he had anything to say. “I can assure the Court it will not happen again. I lost my head. I may have been provoked over the last year or so, but provocation is no excuse for what I did.” FOUND DRUNK Charles Wright, aged 53, an electrician, was fined £2, in default four days’ imprisonment, on a charge of being found drunk in Cashel street on March 7, having been once previously convicted of a similar offence within the last six months. REMANDED

Two youths, whose names were ordered not to be published meantime and who were represented by Mr J. A. Robertson, were remanded on bail to March 14 on a charge of unlawfully interfering with a motor-car. TAXI DRIVER OVERCHARGED Neil Leslie Nicholson, a taxi driver, pleaded guilty to charges that on December 26 he overcharged for a fare and that he double hired his taxi.

He was fined £4 on each charge. Chief Patrol Officer P. Lunn, of the Christchurch City Council traffic department, said that a man named Watt telephoned from Heathcote at 11.15 p.m. on December 25 for a taxi. At 12.15 a.m. on December 26 Nicholson arrived. Watt recognised him, for they lived in the same street. Watt got into the taxi and asked to be driven to

Kirkwood avenue, Riccarton. Nicholson put four other passengers into the taxi without the permission of Watt. Two of these four he dropped off in Maunsell street and did not charge them any fare. He dropped the other two in Milton street and charged them £l. If he had been entitled to charge them anything, which he was not, it should have been 14s 6d. He then took Watt to Riccarton and charged him 225. He was entitled to charge 19s at the very most, so he received £2 2s for a 19s fare.

Nicholson said he was new to taxidnvmg and on this particular night there was no fare scale in the taxi. There was a shortage of taxis that night and his office had told him to pick up the second fare. He asked Watt if he would mind if the others were taken. Watt did not dispute the fare at the time, and if he had done so he, Nicholson, would have called his office on the radio telephone and asked what fare should be charged. He was willing to refund the overcharge to prove that he acted unintentionally. The mistake was due to his inexperience.

7E AF ? IC OFFENCES Ihe following persons were prosecuted by the traffic department of the Christchurch City Council for breaches of the traffic regulations and penalties were imposed as stated:— the speed limit: lan Hanm?.r Atkinson, £2: Alfred Francis Barrett. £5 (no driver’s licence, 10s); Clive Marshall Frizzell, £2; Ronald Owen Hobbs, £3 (no warrant of fitness, 10s); John Wesley McMillan, £2 (no warrant of fitness, costs only); Klaas Vroegindewey, £2. Failing to give way: Qarry George Berryman, £4; Murray John Peckham, Failing to stop at compulsory stop sign: Frank Edwards, £2; Peter Saville, £2 (no warrant of fitness, 10s), xr£ ar £i ng .“I Prohibited area: Olive Hill 30s; John Charles Mansfield, £2 Using unlicensed motor-vehicle: Peter Joseph O Loughlin, £5 (using w /ong licence label, £2; no warrant of fitness. convicted and discharged). Insufficient lights on motor-vehicle: George Purdo, £2 (failing to produce driver’s licence, £1; failing to produce warrant of fitness, 10s).

silencer on motor-vehicle: John St. Clair Vincent, £2 (no warrant of fitness. 10s). Carrying pillion-passenger while restricted to L plates: lan Hubert Toneycliffe, £2. The following prosecutions were br 2 u M bt by tbe Transport Department: Failing to keep to the left: Robert Jackson Havern, £2 (no drive’s £2 nCe ’ £1) ’ Raymond Vipond Watts, Using unlicensed motor-vehicle: Henry John Jones, £5 (no warrant of fitness, 10s). Failing to give way.—Albert David Mansfield, £2. CIVIL CASES (Before Mr Rex C. Abernethy. S.M.) FATHER OBTAINS INJUNCTION AGAINST SON Edward Robert Allpress, a pensioner (Mr A. Hearn), proceeded against Edward Robert William Allpress junior, a labourer, on a claim for £75 and an injunction restraining the defendant from further trespassing on the plaintiff’s home. The plaintiff’s statement of claim said he owned a house at 310 Winchester street, Lyttelton, and the defendant was formerly a boarder there. On June 11, 1954, as the result of the defendant’s disorderly behaviour, the plaintiff gave the defendant seven days’ notice to leave the house or he would proceed to have him evicted. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had not complied with the notice and had continued to trespass upon the property from time to time, therefore the plaintiff claimed £75 as general damages for trespass and an injunction restraining the defendant from further trespass. After hearing evidence for both parties, in which it was stated that plaintiff and defendant were father and son, the Magistrate said it had not been fully proved that the defendant’s behaviour had been disorderly, but the father could at any time require a son to leave the house, as had been done in this case. The plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to an injunction. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £1 and he was granted an injunction restraining the defendant from further trespass.