MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 January 1929, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES

The resumption of Magistrate’s Court sittings after the holidays found a lengthy list of cases for the attention of Mr. W. Meldrum, S.M., at Greymouth to-day. The majority of the cases were the result of breaches of the Licensing Act. Senior-Sergeant C." E. Roache represented the police. A prohibition order was granted against a defendant, on the application of his wife. A “drunk” who behaved in a disorderly manner at Dunollie on January 4, was fined 10/-. Caught in the Suburban Hotel on Sunday, November 4, a first offendei was ordered to pay 10/- costs. Foi giving a false name to the police, he was fined 10/- with 10/- costs. Two first offenders, caught after hours in the Club Hotel, Greymouth, on November 24, were each ordered to pay costs. . Two first offenders, caught in the Commercial Hotel, Greymouth, on the same date, were ordered to pay costs, 12/- and -10/- respectively. Caught in the Dunollie Hotel on December 2, two first offenders were ordered to pay costs. Two first offenders, caught in the

Blackball Hotel on November 25, were ordered to pay costs. Four first offenders, caught in the Union Hotel, Greymouth, on December 1, were each ordered to pay costs. The charges against Frederick Mcllroy and Horace Lonsdale, seamen, who foriwarded written explanations, were dismissed. , , . Charles Birss, who pleaded not guilty, stated that he went to the hotel about 10 p.m., and booked a room for the night,, as his wife had gone to Hokitika. Robert Elliott, who also pleaded not guilty, stated that he went to the hotel about 10 p.m., and booked a room, paying two shillings each foi bed and breakfast. He was working at Camerons, and staying at Paroa. He cycled back to Paroa later, and did not stay at the Union Hotel. The S.M. stated that if defendant had stayed at the Union Hotel, he would have been inclined to accept his explanation. Under the ci™umstances, he could not do so. Elliott was ordered to pay costs on the chaige of being on the premises after hours. Elliott was also fined 10/- with 10/costs, for giving a false name to the police, which he admitted. The explanation of Birss was accepted, and the charge against him dismissed. A BLACKBALL FAREWELL.

A farewell social and dance, given to a number of the unemployed men at Blackball on the night of November 20, led to some of them being charged with being unlawfully on the premises of the Club Hotel on the morning ot November 24. Four of the defendants, who did not appear, were each ordered to paj costs. The licensee, William Thomas Blackmun, represented by Mr. W. P. McCarthy, pleaded not guilty to charges of selling liquor after hours, exposing liquor for sale, and keeping his premises open for the sale ot nConstable Conway said lie heard men’s voices in the back-room, as half-drunken persons were having an argument. Prior to that, he heard the door close, and saw five men near the premises. They ran away when they saw witness, and a stone, was thrown, but missed him. On gaining admission to the hotel, he found a number of men still there, wiht glasses of beer in front of them. A written statement made by the licensee was to the effect that a i' are ‘ well ball to the unemployed was held tliTst night, and the men came to the bote land asked him for a drink before they left Blackball. He “shouted the men, and received no payment. He did not invite the men to come to tne premises. Mr. McCarthy stated that the men called to say “goodbye’ ’to Blackmun, as they were leaving by the early train, and he “shouted” for them. Defendant gave evidence to that effect, and said that the constable arrived before the men finished their first drink. When the constable came in they ran away. Had they remained and explained the reason for their presence, the position might have been different. Robert E. Houston corroborated the licensee’s statement. The S.M. ruled that Houston and Bernard Joseph O’Connor were unlawfully on the premises, and they were each convicted and fined £l, with 10s costs (being second offenders). The evidence against the licensee did. not establish the sale or exposure of liquor, while the charge of keeping the premises open was also not proved. There was a certain element of suspicion, but no direct evidence. Under the circumstances, the charges against the licensee were dismissed. ' Constable Conway gave evidence as to his discovery of the men who ran away when they saw him. Thomas Ivey stated that he went to the premises to use the convenience, and denied being in the hotel itself. “1 wasn’t in no pub at all!” he declared. The explanation given by Silas Lewis was that he was at Slatey Creek cn the night of November 24, and was not at Blackball. He denied being in the hotel after hours on the night of November 23. Robert C. McDonald also denied being in the hotel. He said that the constable had accused him of throwing a stone, but had apparently found out his mistake, as he (McDonald) was not charged with stone-throwing. He denied having an argument with another man, named George Clarke, and being ordered out of the hotel.

In reply to the S.M., McDonald stated that the hotel was burned recently, and temporary premises were in on the date of the charge. The temporary premises were not fenced. The S.M. accepted Ivey’s explanation, and dismissed the charge against him. There was some doubt in McDonald’s case, and he was entitled to the benefit of it. Lewis would be convicted and ordered to pay costs.

* ARMS ACT BREACH. Charged with obtaining possession of a rifle at Greymouth on January 16, without a police permit, Robert Charles Patrick Wilson Matthews was fined 5/-, with costs. He was ordered to pay costs on a second charge, of being in possession of an unregistered rifle. BY-LAW CASES. Leslie Stanton was fined 5/-, with costs, for operating a motor vehicle at Greymouth on December 8, without a red reflector. He was also ordered to pay costs on each of two changes

of failing to display a red tail light on the vehicle, and failing to produce his driver’s license when requested to do so.

Cyril William Lovell was fined 5/-, with costs, for riding a cycle without a light after sunset on. December 6. Catherine Spencer was fined 5/-, with costs, for a similar offence on November 28.

For leaving a motor vehicle in Murray Street without reasonable excuse on the night of November 12, Leo Roy Devenish was fined 5/-, with costs.

Reginald George Castle was similarly penalised for operating a motor cycle not equipped with a red reflector. Defendant stated that he did not know it' was necessary to have a reflector affixed in the day-time, and he never used the machine at night. He had, since being spoken to by the police, had a reflector fitted. “DANGEROUS BUSINESS.” A plea of guilty was entered by Lawrence Foster Martin, who was charged that, at Kotuku on December G, he employed Cyril Martin to drive a motor vehicle, when he was not the holder of a driver’s license. Defendant said that he availed himself of the -boy’s services under extenuating circumstances. The boy was driving only for three days. The Senior-Sergeant stated that complaints had been made to the police, that the boy was a reckless driver.

Defendant replied that “there was always someone ready to make complaints, if they saw a man trying to get on.” There was very little traffic on the road.

The S.M., remarking that it was dangerous business to employ a child to drive a motor lorry, fined defendant £2, with 12/-’costs. ALLEGED BIGAMY. Appearing on remand, Frederick William Bennett was charged that, being already married, he went through the form of marriage at the Registrar’s Office, Greymouth, on November 16.

The Senior-Sergeant applied for a further remand until February 4, as one witness was absent from Greymouth.

Mr W. P. McCarthy, who represented accused, offered no objection, and the remand was granted.

“UNUSUAL CASE.”

“This is rather ah unusual case,” said the Senior-Sergeant, when four charges were preferred against a young man, who was accused of committing mischief at Cobden during October, November and December, by wilfully damaging articles of apparel, the property of four young women, the total value of the articles beingassessed at 12/6.

The Senior-Sergeant suggested that the S.M. might feel disposed to exercise the provisions of the Child Welfare Act, and deal with the case in the Children’s Court. It seemed that defendant had broken into the houses on four occasions, and interfered with the clothing. The S.M. agreed that the case was one suitable for the Children’s Court, and adjourned it until January 21.