MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 October 1931, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES

Mr. W. Meldrum, S.M., presided at to-day’s sitting of the Greymouth Magistrate’s Court.

Two statutory first offenders, caught upon licensed premises after hours, were each convicted and ordered to pay costs. James Crimmins, bushman, of Kotuku, was charged that, on September 7, he committed mischief at Moana, by wilfully damaging a bar slide valued at £1 10/-, and a floor mat valued at. 10/-, the property of Norman L. Field. Mr T. F. Brosnan appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty. Senior-Sergeant C. E. Roach stated that Crimmins-had been to Greymouth, and left by train, but instead of getting off at Kotuku, he went on to Moana. He had ..several drinks in. He went to the hotel at Moana and asked for something to eat, which was supplied. He also wanted something to drink, and was given a shandy, as previous experience had shown that he used bad language and kicked up a fuss if he did not get what he wanted. After being given the shandy, he wanted more drink. It was refused, and he then smashed the bar slide and threw a mat into the fire. The damage had been made good since. There were no previous convictions against defendant. Mr Brosnan said that apparently defendant got very drunk in Greymouth, and was carried past Kotuku without knowing it. He went to the hotel at Moana, where he acted as barman under a formei' licensee. He had trouble with the new barman, and apparently lost his head. A couple of days later he went to the licensee, expressed his sorrow, and made arrangements for making good the damage. He was a young man. and had assured the speaker that the trouble would not happen again. Mr Brosnan asked the S.M. to take into consideration that the damage had been made good, and the defendant had expressed regret. The Senior-Sergeant pointed out that the hotel was 15 miles from the nearest police station, and the licensee was in an awkward position when such incidents occurred. The S.M. fined Crimmins £l, with £1 3/- Court costs and 2/6 witness’s expenses. GAOL FOR THIEF. Appearing on remand, George Morgan, alias George Rodgers, alias Ernest Edward Walton, Alias Jack Morgan, 39, was charged that, at Greymouth on September 24, he stole a suitcase and contents, valued at 19/-, the property of Frederick Arthur Logie. He was also charged that, on or about September 10, at Blenheim, he stole two shirt, valued at £l, the property of Clarence Albert Chapman. A third charge alleged that, on September 10, at Blenheim, he stole £l2, the property of George White.

Detective H. C. Murch asked that the third charge, which was of an indictable nature, be taken first, to give accused the right of trial by jury. It was alleged that accused entered an hotel, and stole the money.

Morgan pleaded guilty, and elected to be dealt with summarily. He also pleaded guilty to the other two charges. Detective Murch stated that, in respect to the first charge, a number of Christchurch footballers arrived at Greymouth, and left their suitcases at the Dominion Hotel. Accused, wha was more or less in a drunken condition, entered the hotel and stole one case and its contents. He was later interviewed, but waas unable to say what he had done with the stolen goods. They had since been recovered, and returned to the owner. On September 10, accused was staying at a boardinghouse in Blenheim. He entered the Empire Hotel and stole two shirts and £l2 from two separate rooms. The shirts had not been recovered, and the money had been spent. Accused, who had a list of previous convictions, had apparently been travelling around the country, and once he got liquor he seemed to begin to thieve.

“Drink is the whole trouble, sir,” said accused, when asked by the S.M. if he had anything to say. The S.M.: Well, you have got a list against you. There are three convictions for theft and three for being idle and disorderly, all within the past three years. You are convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on each charge, the sentences to be concurrent.

DAIRYMAN FINED. MILK UNDER STANDARD. That, on August 27, at Greymouth, he sold for human consumption milk containing less than three and a-quar-ter per cent, of milk fat, was the information laid against Frederick George Frankpitt, dairy farmer, of Coal Creek, by the Health Inspector (Mr M. E. Bettel), for whom Mr F. A. Kitchingham appeared. The information was laid under Regulation 42 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1908. The certificate of Mr F. J. T. Grigg, Government Analyst, showed that the milk fat content of the sample taken from defendant’s cans was 3.02 per cent. Mr J. W. Hannan, who appeared for defendant, entered a plea of guilty. He said that the Inspector took a test from defendant’s cans while on delivery. Tests were taken from two separate cans. The milk from one can was considerably above the required standard, but that from the second was below the requirements. The milk in the cans was all from the same herd. With regard to the second can, it was almost empty, and apparently the deficiency in standard was due to the fact that the cream had risen to the top, and the milk was not sufficiently stirred before being delivered. There was no suggestion that water had been added to the milk. At this time of the year, with the change from Winter to Spring, when the cows were being taken off the Winter feed and put on to green feed, there was some trouble in regard to variation in the standard of the milk. The milk delivered by defendant previously had been frequently tested, and had been up to standard. Defendant stated that he was on his round at Greymouth, when the tests were taken from two separate cans, one of which was full and the othet three parts empty. The milk in the full can was above standard, the test showing 3.9 of milk fat. Mr Hannan. Why should there be a variation between the milk in the two cans?—One was full, and he had the benefit of getting the sample from the top, and the other had been used. A good deal of cream would have been taken away from it?—Yes. Seven gallons of that milk was gone.

Your milk is tested frequently, once or twice per month?—Yes.

In reply to another question, defendants said that he had been at Greymouth all his life, and in the business for some years. The milk had never previously been found to be below the standard. The milk varied in August and September, when the cow-s were put on green oats after the hard Winter feed, and the milk took a day or so to recover again. They had been on green feed on the day before the tests were made. They got full up on the green feed, and did not take the hard feed. That would account for the variation.

Mr Kitchingham said it was known that prosecutions of this kind almost invariably occurred at this time of the year. Had defendant not noticed reports of previous cases', in which the same plea was put up, with reference to milk in the bottom of the can? The Health Department insisted that a stirrer should be carried. Defendant said that he carried a stirrer, and used it every time the lid was lifted off the can.

Mr Kitchingham: In that case, your plea in that respect would scarcely stand. If the milk is stirred adequately, it should be virtually the same quality at the top as at the bottom, so that you would not have an excessive draw-off of cream from the top portion. Defendant stated that four gallons had been taken from the can at once that morning, which would take away a lot of cream.

Mr Hannan said that there had been no previous complaints about defendant, and there was no suggestion that •water had been added to the milk. It was unfortunate that such things did occur at this time of the year. Mr Kitchingham agreed that there was no suggestion that the milk had been tampered with. The question of inadequate stirring of the milk had been raised on previous occasions in other cases. It was quite obvious that customers should not suffer, merely by the accident of getting milk from the bottom of the can. If the milk contained the minimum quantity of milk fat, then by adequate stirring all the customers would get milk of the required standard. Under the circumstances. he submitted, a conviction had to be entered. He wished to stress the point, so that dairymen would see that, milk was stirred properly, and that they would also keep the milk up to standard during the Spring season, when most of the trouble occurred. In the past, the penalty inflicted had been £2, with analyst’s fee, charge for sample bottles, and solicitor’s fee.

The S.M. fined defendant £2, with 10/- Court costs, 10/6 analyst’s fee, 2/6 cost of bottles, and £1 11/6 solicitor’s fee.

, RESERVED DECISION

MAINTENANCE PROBLEM

Decision was given by the S.M., which he reserved last Monday, in the case in which Francis Frederick Boustridge (Mr. W. P, McCarthy) was proceeded against by his former wife, now Ivy Olive Pearl Tiplady, of Christchurch (Mr. G. A. Revell), for disobedience of a maintenance* order. On the other hand, Boustridge applied for the cancellation or variation of the order.

“This case is somewhat involved,” said Mr. Meldrum. “The application before me is one by the husband, Francis Frederick Boustridge, for a variation of a maintenance order made in this Court on April 6, 1925, directing the husband to pay the sum of £l/ 10/- per week for the maintenance of his wife, to be increased to £2 after her confinement, the other 10/- being for the maintenance of the child, which was subsequently born, and bears the name of Asa Norman Boustridge. The case is involved by reason of the fact that since that order was made, the husband has obtained a divorce against his wife. An agreement was entered into between them. An application was made by the father to the Supreme Court, for the custody of the child, which application was refused. The child is in the custody of the wife, who has since married again. There is an application before the Christchurch Cburt, by the wife, for the maintenance of this child. This application which I have to deal with is an application by the husband for a variation of the original order, and asking that it should be cancelled and the arrears remitted. As the case in regard to the maintenance of the child is pending in Christchurch, I shall not deal with that. That is a matter which will be dealt with by the Court in Christchurch. The question is whether I have power, or ought to exercise the authority given under Section 39 of the Destitute Persons Act, to cancel or vary the order. The wife, apparently, is married to a man who is well-to-do, and she is not a destitute person. There is some conflict of authority as to the effect of a diYorce on an order under the Destitute Persons Act. I have dealt with the matter in the case of Austin v. Austin, in this Court some time ago. It has been laid down In the Supreme Court that the object of the Destitute Persons Act is to protect the State. Where parties are still man and wife, and the wife is destitute, the husband must maintain her, even if she refuses to live with him or is guilty of adultery.” The S.M. went on to quote authorities, including Mr. Justice Edwards, who ruled that a husband who had not been guilty of misconduct could rid himself of liability by securing a divorce. In the case of Austin v. Austin, the S.M. held that the divorce had removed liability from the husband to maintain the wife, even though a destitute person, and though the order in that case under the Destitute Persons Act w’as still on record, it was no longer founded on any legal right, either of the wife or, the State, and therefore should be cancelled.

In the present case, he continued, the wife was not a destitute person. She had married a well-to-do farmer, who was in a better position to support her than her former husband was. The effect of the marriage, on the authorities he had quoted, went to show that it was no longer a matter of justice that the order made on April 6, 1925, should remain in force. He thought, that so far as the order for the maintenance of the wife was concerned, it must be cancelled. The position of the child was different. One child was already -being maintained, and was in the custody of the husband. The second child was in the custody of the wife, Mrs. Tiplady, who was making an application at Christchurch for an order for its maintenance. He did not have to deal with that at all. The position with regard to the maintenance of the child was different from that of the maintenance of the wife. In a case cited by Mr. Revell (Bragg v. Bragg, 1924), it was held that an lorder existed until it was varied or cancelled by a Magistrate.

In that case, the S.M. refused to vary the order, the reason being that there was a number of children in the custody of the wife, and she required assistance for their maintenance. The ground of the order appeared to have been that it was still the husband’s duty to maintain the children, even though they were in the custody of his former wife. The Appeal Court upheld the S.M.’s decision. In the present case, the position appeared to be the same. The Christchurch Court would deal with the application for the maintenance of the second child, but he would merely deal with the case so far as the original order was concerned, for the maintenance of the wife. There was not a special provision made for payment on behalf of the child, the maintenance of the wife being increased to £2 per week after the birth of the child. The order was therefore cancelled, and the arrears to date remitted. Mr. McCarthy: The Information for failure to maintain will accordingly be dismissed ? The S.M. replied in the affirmative. Mr. McCarthy said that there was one correction he wfould like to make, for the purpose of publicity. It was mentioned in Court that Boustridge had denied paternity 'of the child. The statement was not made by him, but by the wife. Mrs. Tiplady swore an affidavit to that effect.