MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 September 1928, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH SITTING.

The list of cases dealt with by Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., at the Greymouth Magistrate’s Court to-day, was not so lengthy as usual. The police were represented by Sergeant J. Smyth. A statutory first offender, caught on licensed premises after hours, was ordered to pay 10/- costs. Convictions without penalty were recorded in the cases of Ethel Butler, Abraham Hudson, and Frank Neame, who were charged with driving cars not equipped with reflectors. The Sergeant stated that the circumstances were the same as in the cases dealt with on Monday last. INEFFICIENT BRAKES. The condition of the brakes on a motor car inspected by Mr A. J. Sloss (Traffic Inspector) at Greymouth on August 10, resulted in charges being laid against the owner and the driver of the vehicle. Alfred John Wall, of Kumara, a Power Board employee, was charged with operating a car .which was not equipped with two independent brakes, one being a footbrake and the other a hand-brake, in that he permitted the, car to be used by George Alfred Cooper, of Kumara, a bushman, contrary to Clause 4 of the Motor Regulations, 1928. Cooper was charged with operating the car. Mr H. F. Doogan, who appeared for the Traffic Inspector, said that the car was owned by Wall, and was being used by Cooper when the Inspector examined it. Inspector Sloss said that, on August 10, the car was being used in Guinness Street by Cooper. With the assistance of Mr W. Cochrane (Borough Inspector) witness tested the brakes, and found that they were both “practically gone.” There was no hand brake, and the foot brake was in such a state that it was useless. Witness saw Cooper standing nearby, and, When he was questioned, he denied be- 1 ing the owner of the car. Enquiries made at the Post Office revealed that the vehicle was the property of Wall, who recently shifted his residence from Hari Hari to Kumara. Cooper stated that Wall had lent him the car, and it was in the same state when he received it.

Defendants, who did not appear, were each convicted and fined £l, with 10/- costs. Solicitor’s fee of £1 1/- was allowed in each case.

SCAFFOLDING REGULATIONS. That it does not pay to ignore the provisions of the Scaffolding and Excavation Act, 1922, was impressed upon A. G. Wells, builder and contractor, of Reefton, against whom two charges were laid by the Inspector of Scaffolding (Mr A. D. Snedden). Wells was Charged (1) That, on or about August 15, at Wallsend, he began the erection Of a scaffolding, incurring the risk of a fall of over 12 feet, without having first notified the Inspector of his intention to do so, as required by Section 5 of the Scaffolding and Excavation Act, 1922; (2) that he erected a scaffolding, the working platform of which was at a greater height than 10 feet from the ground, and failed fo provide a guard, rail, as required by Clause 14 of the Act. Outlining the circumstances, Mr Snedden stated that, on August 20, as he was on his way to Westport, he noticed that the scaffolding had’been erected at the Empire Hotel, Wallsend. He had received no notice of intention to erect the scaffolding, as required by the Act, so he made enquiries, and found that the defendant was the builder. The scaffolding was 21 feet high. Defendant was not present, but witness left instructions for him as to what was required to bring the scaffolding in accordance with the regulations. On his return journey from Westport, he discovered that the scaffolding had not been altered. Defendant admitted having received the instructions, also that work had continued on the scaffolding meanwhile. The offence was regarded as. serious by the Department, as fatal accidents had occurred on a scaffolding only half the height of that erected by defendant. Wells was warned twelve months ago, for a similar offence at Reefton.

The S.M. convicted and fined defendant £l, with 10/- costs, on the first charge, and £2, with 10/- costs, on the second charge. “A NOTED CHARACTER.” BAD LANGUAGE AT BLACKBALL. When John Dunn, a miner, was charged last Monday with psing obscene language at Blackball on September 1, he denied it, and called William McVicar to support his denial. McVicar went further, and swore that Francis Patrick Mulligan, the third man of the trio, was responsible for the words complained of. On the other hand, Constable Conway stated that the language was loudly used by Dunn, despite a warning to desist. The case was adjourned until to-day, in order to give Mulligan an opportunity of defending himself. When the hearing was resumed today, Mulligan was called as a witness. Sergeant Smyth: It was alleged last week that you used certain obscene language, Mulligan. Is it right that you used this language?—No. You were in company with Dunn and McVicar? —Yes.

Was the language used by one of your party?—Yes. Which one used it? —I cannot tell you.

Dunn says that neither he nor McVicar used it, and McVicar swore that you used it. There were only three of you there. The constable says that Dunn used the language?—lt was used by one of the three, but I could not swear which one.

It was not used by you?—No. The constable said something about moving on, and I moved on. I had gone six or seven yards when the language was used.

Another witness, George Nuttall, was then called by Dunn, who asked: Did you notice Constable Conway that night?—l was standing three or four yards away when the language .was used. The constable accused Dunn, but he denied using the language. I am satisfied that it was not Dunn’s voice.

Dunn: How far away was the constable? —About 100 yards. The Sergeant: Why didn’t Dunn call you }last week? Why was not your name mentioned last Monday? The constable is prepared to swear that you could not have possibly heard him warn Dunn about the language.— 1 was only three or four.yards away. Why did you not say that last week? Why did Dunn and McVicar put the blame on Mulligan? You know that Dunn is a noted character in Blackball, for bad language and everything else? —He never used that language.

What did the constable say to Dunn? —He said, “You have been using bad language.’ Dunn said he

had not, and that he was sorry if one of the party had used it. In answer to further questions, witness denied that he was accusing Mulligan, and explained that, although he was in Court last Monday, he did not speak because he was not called upon to give evidence.

“I am satisfied it was not Dunn who used the language,” said witness, in reply to the S.M. Did you know the voice? —No. The Sergeant: You are Johnny Dunn’s bosom pal?—Yes.

“Of course you are!” exclaimed the Sergeant. Recalled by the S.M., Constable Conway said that Nuttall was standing at least ten yards away when witness spoke to Dunn, and it would not be possible for him to hear witness warn Dunn, as he spoke quietly. The allegation that Mulligan used the language was not correct). Dunn’s voice was well known to witness, and he was positively certain that Dunn used the language. Dunn': How far away were you when you heard me using the language?—l was right alongside you. You were still continuing the flow of nasty language when I tapped you on the shoulder.

What did I say?—You said you did not think you were using the language out loud so that it could be heard.

After further argument between the constable and Dunn, the S.M. said it was admitted by Dunn and McVicar that the language was used. They said it was used by Mulligan, but he denied it. Constable Conway said he was right alongside Dunn at the time. “There is no doubt whatever that the language was used by Dunn,” declared the S.M. Dunn was convicted and fined £l, with 13/- costs and 14/2 witness’s expenses to Mulligan.