Magistrate’s Court CHARGE OF FAILING TO PAY WAGES TAX FAILS

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28906, 28 May 1959, Page 6

Magistrate’s Court CHARGE OF FAILING TO PAY WAGES TAX FAILS

A charge of failing to pay £296 15s 2d wages tax against Samuel lan Cardwell, an electrical contractor and motor parts dealer <Mr J. G. Leggat) was dismissed by Mr G. A. Nicholls, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. He pleaded not guilty. Mr P. F. Feenstra prosecuted for the Department of Inland Revenue.

A tax inspector, Phillip David Stewart Boyd, said that in November, 1957. he examined the defendant’s books, and although the current wages book appeared to have keen kept in regular order. Cardwell could not produce records before October. 1956. Later, when the department asked for a written explanation with supporting evidence, Cardwell could not supply one. John Thomas Thore said that when he was employed in the Addington Post Office up to August. 1957, he remembered Cardwell purchasing wages stamps.

Cardwell said that he paid his employees by cheque, and during the time of the alleged offence he purchased stamps which he entered in a wages book. He said the last time he saw the book was when he placed it at the bottom of a box with some other books, in his old premises in Colombo street. He did not know what had happened to them, but he said they could have been stolen by children or mislaid when he shifted to new premises in McFaddens road. “I am prepared to accept the defendant’s explanation.” said the Magistrate. “The thing that ‘impressed me most was when the i inspector examined the books in October. 1957. they were in order back to October. 1956.” He said he would accept as “probable” Cardwell’s explanation that the tax was in fact paid, but the only record of payment was missing from the old Colombo street premises. ! “There was nothing suspicious lin the conduct of the defendant .when asked for an explanation.” ‘he added. SHEEP NEAR HOUSE

Joseph William Groom (Mr L. G. Holder) was fined £5 for permitting six sheep to graze within 100 links of a dwelling at 134 Bower avenue on January 16. He pleaded not guilty. Mr A. Hearn prosecuted for the Christchurch City Council. Edgar John Peek, an inspector, said he visited the defendant’s property in Bower avenue after receiving a complaint from the occupant of a house on the adjoining section. He saw six sheep grazing near a fence which was 20 feet away from a house owned by the complainant. Joseph Dick Brittan. When be asked Groom to shift the sheep, he replied. “I’ll shift them in my own time.” The sheep were still grazing in the section two weeks later, he said. Mr Holder said that the sheep were owned by Groom’s daughter, and the section by Groom’s wife. The charge was that Groom permitted the sheep to graze on the property. “You are the ruler of the house,” said the Magistrate to Groom. “If you feel you are the man who shouldn’t be fined, you collect it from your daughter.” FAILED TO CLEAR SECTION R. W. Thompson (Mr B. L. Stanley) pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to clear a vacant two-acre section in St. Albans on December 12, 1958. He was fined £5. Mr A. Hearn who prosecuted for the Christchurch City Council said that Thompson received a notice in January ordering him to clear the section, but nothing had been done.

The section had been in a dangerous state for six months. It was overgrown with grass and weeds and created a fire danger. Mr Stanley said that some small clearing had been done over the years and after the notice. He did not consider the section constituted a great fire danger, and there were no houses near the boundary. “The defendant is still under obligation to clear the section,” said the Magistrate. “If he does not, he will get a more substantial fine.” TAX NOT DEDUCTED Electronic Engineers, Ltd. (Mr B. G. Dingwall) pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to deduct £142 10s wages tax between April 1, 1956, and March 31, 1958. The company was fined £lO and :dsts. Mr Feenstra prosecuting for the Department of Inland Revenue,

s|iid that the managing director had drawn his gross wage, and had failed to pay his social security charge at the end of the year. Mr Dingwall said that the managing director had failed to make a distinction between the company and himself. UNDERWEIGHT BREAD Sunderland Bros., Ltd., bakers (Mr A. F. Shaw) was fined £lO on a charge of selling a loaf of bread of less than 21b on February 27. A plea of guilty was entered. An employee responsible for the testing had not carried out his work properly, said Mr Shaw. The company had been operating for 37 years and this was the first prosecution of this nature. WAGES TAX NOT PAID James Howard Gameson was fined £25 and costs on a charge of failing to pay £47 13s 6d wages tax between April 1. 1955. and March 31, 1956. Mr Feenstra prosecuted for the Department of Inland Revenue. CONVERSION CHARGE (Before Messrs W. E. Olds ahd E. J. Woolf, '* Justices of the Peace) John Joseph Hill, aged 19 (Mr J. A C. Perrott) who pleaded not guilty to a charge of converting a car valued at £9OO on October 19, was committed for trial in the Supreme Court. He elected trial by jury. Senior DetectiveSergeant J. B. McLean prosecuted. Graham William Dempsey, who is at present serving a term of Borstal training, after pleading guilty to a charge of car conversion in the Magistrate’s Court in November, said that he, another youth who was also in Borstal, and the accused met in Cathedral square and left to go to the pictures in Riccarton. In Weka street they took a car belonging to a Mrs Smith after they had found the keys in the glove box. They went to Lyttelton and took turns at driving and then abandoned the car near the corner of Stanmore road and Hereford street. Hill’s bail was tenewed and he was ordered to report twice weekly to the police. OBSCENE EXPOSURE ALLEGED A 46-year-old man, who pleaded not guilty to a charge of obscene exposure in Randolph street, on April 3, was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. After submissions by Mr P. G. S. Penlington, for accused, the man’s name was suppressed. Mr Penlington said that the man had a clear record and the defence had not yet been heard. As it would be eight or nine weeks before the accused stood trial, it would be unjust if his name was published before the grand jury considered the charge.