POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 25301, 9 October 1944, Page 6

POLICE COURT

MONDAY, OCTOBER 9. . (Before. Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) FAILURE TO RETURN INCOME. John Creighton (Mr A. J. Dowling), a single man, employed as a labourer at the Hillside Workshops, pleaded guilty to two charges of having failed to furnish a return of income tor 1943 and 1944:—Mr J. B. Deaker said that the defendant had not furnished any returns since 1939, but the tax for 1940 1941, and 1942 had been deducted from his wages, the amount of his earnings being ascertained from the Railway Department. Defendant had been warned that failure to maike future returns would result in prosecution.—Mr Dowling said that the defendant 'was an elderly man, who was not well up in the regulations, and the fact that the tax for previous years had been deducted from his wages had led him- to believe that everything would be all right. The necessary returns had now been completed.—ln reply to the magistrate, Mr Deaker said that there was no suggestion of evasion of payment of the tax, and His Worship imposed the minimum fine of £2, with costs 110 s) on "each charge, and solicitor'stees totalling £3 3s. Leslie Horace Frude, advertising agent (Mr T. O'Shea), pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to furnish returns of income for 1943 and 1944. Mr Deaker said there had been neglect on the part of defendant for some years ipast to send in returns; he had been warned and all tax had been paid to 1942.—Mr O'Shea said that the defendant, in common with many other business men, had suffered from depleted staff, and in addition he had been drawn into activities on behalf _of patriotic causes, so that his own affairs had been allowed to drift. There had been no great amount involved, and no suggestion of evasion of payment. 1 — Defendant was fined £2 10s, with court costs (10s), and solicitor's fee (£3 3s). on each charge. DRUNKENNESS. Hugh Curry, convicted on a charge of drunkenness, was ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within 14 days, on condition that he pays £1 Is medical expenses, Sarah Elizabeth Smith, who had been before the court on many previous occasions, was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months, advised to keep out of town, and warned that if she appeared on any other charge she would be sentenced on' -the present one. A first offender for drunkenness was fined 20s.

OTHER CHARGES. On charges of lighting a fire in the open air without first obtaining a permit, James Robertson McCurraoh and Robert Faris were each fined 10s and costs. For permitting his chimney to catch fire, James Thomas Paget was fined 10s and costs. INTOXICATION CHARGE DISMISSED. Owen Hughes ((Mr E. J. Anderson) i wascharged with being intoxicated in charge of a motor car, and with driving without due care and attention. This matter had been adjourned from time to time. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr Anderson suggested that, as the accident out of which the proceedings had arisen was likely to be the subject of civil proceedings, the second charge be held over in the meantime. The Magistrate said he would consider the point. Sergeant Conway, who prosecuted, described how the defendant, when driving along George street on the evening of June 24, had knocked over two pedestrians. Defendant had been brought to the station, but although the police considered him to be unfit to drive, Dr Porteous, when called, had not certified that drunkenness was the cause of his unfitness. Dr W. J. Porteous, in evidence, said that on examining the defendant, he found him to be unfit to drive, but this condition was, he considered, m»re the result of a nervous state than of the amount of alcohol consumed, though defendant had had drink. To Mr Anderson, witness said he was not prepared to certify that the defendant, was intoxicated. Constable Clarke, who had brought defendant to the station, said that, when the latter was spoken to his speech and manner indicated a state of intoxication. A- bottle of beer and two empty cocktail bottles had been found in defendant's car, the foot brake of which had been found to be unsatisfactory. Sergeant N. Kempt, who was on duty at the Watch house at the Police Station when the defendant was taken there, said that in his opinion Hughes was intoxicated to the extent that he was unfit to be in charge of a vehicle. His breath smelled of liquor, and his speech was slurred. When asked by witness what had happened, defendant said he saw some people hurrying across the footpath. He put his foot on the brake, and it would not work. He was examined by Dr Porteous at 7 Evidence was also given by Leslie Stewart, a soapmaker, who was injured in the accident. - The defendant gave evidence after the magistrate had declined an application by Mr Anderson for dismissal of the intoxication charge on the medical evidence. Hughes said he had five sherries at Port Chalmers on the morning of the accident, and no further liquor from the time he came edin to see a football match until the accident happened. Two pedestrians on the intersection of George and Hanover streets hesitated while crossing it, and stepped back, and some others went on. Three of the persons were struck by his car after the foot brake had failed to stop it properly. Bruce Alan McDermott, of Sawyers Bay, a tannery employee, who was a passenger in Hughes's car, corroborated the driver's evidence. The Magistrate reviewed the evidence at length, and said that there was no doubt whatever that the pedestrians came on to the crossing at the intersection in an orderly manner, and did not run on to it, as suggested by the defendant and his passenger. The accident was caused by the careless driving of Hughes, but that was not the end of the matter. Both police witnesses were of the opinion that Hughes was intoxicated. He had stated that the only drinks he had consumed that day were sherries in the morning. The Magistrate said that he would like to he assured that both the defendant and McDermott had given their evidence on that point truthfully. He was not | satisfied wholly that such was the case. The court must, however, give full consideration to the evidence of a medical witness in such cases when they were, called to examine persons suspected of being intoxicated. On the evidence in this particular case, His Worship would not be justified in convicting Hughes because of the nature of the evidence given by Dr Porteous. The intoxication charge would be dismissed. The Magistrate said that it was quite obvious that Hughes, who had been badly wounded on active service in ]<>ypt, should not consume any liquor. Mr Anderson said that tjils observa-

tion opened, up a big question so far as it concerned men who had * suchi a lengthy spell from driving in civilian traffic. ■•',■-,- •■.,'.' < For driving without proper care and attention, Hughes - was fined £5 and costs (£2 15s 8d). The Magistrate ad- ! journed the question of the suspension of his driving license for 12 months, leave being reserved to the police to make an application for the suspension of the license during that time, granted that Hughes was given three days' notice of the intention to apply for the cancellation of the license. ; .