MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 November 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 Court. Senior-Sergeant C. E. Roach represented the police. An offender for drunkenness was fined 5/-, the amount of his bail. Two statutory first offenders, caught on licensed premises without lawful excuse after hours, were each convicted and ordered to pay costs. For riding an unlighted cycle after sunset, John Parfitt was fined 5/-, with 10/- costs. “PEEPING TOM” AT COBDEN “People cannot be hanging around houses, looking into windows and so on, and acting like Peeping Tom,” said the S.M. “That must be put down.” The case was that in which John Henry Edward Smith, a labourer, was charged that, on October 22, he was found without lawful excuse, but in circumstances not disclosing the commission or intention to commit any other offence, in the enclosed yard of premises occupied by Lena McNeill, of Hall Street, Cobden. Smith pleaded guilty. The Senior-Sergeant stated that on two occasions, at night, accused went on to the premises, attracted by the light from a window. The blind was up, and it was the kitchen window. “He went up just to see what he could see, I supnose,” said the Senior-Ser-geant. “The second time, he made a noise. The woman went out to see what it was, and recognised him. He admitted the offence to the constable.” The S.M.:, Have you anything to say? “Nothing,” replied Smith, except that I don’t know what made me act like I did.” The S.M.: There is nothing previously against him? “No, sir,” replied the Senior-Ser-geant. The S.M. said that the offence was a stupid one. To look into a kitchen might not have been likely to lead to any serious result, but people could not be hanging around houses, looking into windows and so on, and acting like “Peeping Tom.” That must be put down, Accused had no right to be in the enclosed yard at all. As nothing previously was known against Smith, he would be treated leniently on this occasion. He would be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence, if called upon -within twelve months. FATHER’S RESPONSIBILITY The question of responsibility was clearly defined in a maintenance case, in which Brendan Creagh (Mr M. B. James) applied for the variation of a maintenance order. Mr G. A. Revell represented the other side. Mr James said that a maintenance order was made by' Mr T. B. McNeill, S.M., at Wellington, on October 31, 1930, for the payment of 15/- per week in respect of a child. Since Christmas, 1929, complainant had been unemployed. He was a member of a Brunner family, and his mother kept a store there. During most of 1929, he assisted his mother in the store, but business was not such as to warrant him being paid a wage. Since the coal-mining troubles manifested themselves, he had had to seek unemployment relief. Up to July 10, he averaged four days per month on relief work, at 14/- per day. From July to the present date, he had earned £l4, equal to 15/7 per week. He had paid the whole of his earnings to his mother, and she had kept him and bought his working clothes, and also endeavoured to keep up the payments under the order. The payments were made up to September 21, and the arrears dated from that date. Complainant suffered from a lame leg, which prevented him from working in the mines, and he had been unsuccessful in his efforts to secure regular employment elsewhere. He had never endeavoured to evade his responsibility. The order was at present too high for him to meet; if it were reduced to 10/- per week, there was a possibility of it being kept up-to-date. Complainant gave evidence on these lines.

The S.M. asked who was keeping the child, and Mr James said he understood it was with the grandparents.

Mr Revell stated that the mother died at the time of the child’s birth, and the maternal grandmother had since kept it. He was instructed that she was in bad circumstances. In May last, Creagh applied to the S.M. at Wellington for a variation of the order, but it was declined. Creagh’s evidence then was substantially the same as it was now. The S.M. suspended the payment of the arrears, sine die. “It really boils down to a question of upon whom is the burden going to fall,” said Mr Revell. “Upon Creagh, the maternal grandmother, or the public at large? The responsibility should belong to the father.” Under the circumstances, Mr Revell submitted that 15/- per week was not an unreasonable amount. Creagh had brought the circumstances about, and the burden should be his. Mr Revell asked that the order be not varied. It it were considered that Creagh were unable to pay, the arrears could be suspended. The S.M. said he took it that the order for the suspension of the arrears was still in existence. Mr Revell said that order referred to the £ll due until May last. Since that time, payments had been fairly regularly made. Mr James said that a reduction of the order, and not a cancellation, was asked for. The S.M. said that the question of whether the payment was excessive or not was one for the S.M. at Wellington, where the grandmother and child lived. The speaker did not know their conditions, but the S.M. there had assessed 15/- per week as a reasonable payment. He (Mr Meldrum) had no new facts before him, and certainly had none which would justify him in varying the order. “I do not feel that I am called upon to alter it,” he said. “I can suspend the payment of arrears for a further period, but I cannot go beyond that. The applicant is responsible for this child’s existence. It is his child, and, above all other people, he is responsible for its maintenance. I will make an order, suspending the payment of arrears for a period of three months.” LICENSEE FINED. The licensee of the Cobden Hotel, William Brown, was charged that, on Sunday, October 25, he unlawfully opened his premises for the sale of liquor, and that he unlawfully sold liquor. Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for defendant, and entered a plea of guilty to the charge of selling. The other charge was ■withdrawn.

The Senior-Sergeant said that three men were found standing at the bar slide, at 10.25 a.m. They had drinks in front of them, and a two-shilling piece was on the slide. Defendant was previously convicted for a similar offence, in December, 1929. Mr Hannan said that the facts were as stated. Defendant had been in thT Recreation Hotel until about three months ago, and it was almost two years since he had been before the Court. The-S.M. imposed a fine of £5, with 10/- costs.

Brown was also charged with aiding and abetting two men in the commission of an “after hours” offence, on Sunday, October 18. Mr Hannan entered a plea of not guilty. The Senior-Sergeant stated that, at 8.20 p.m., the hotel was visited by Sergeant Murray and Constable Cogswell. The door of the hotel was locked, and it was some minutes before the licensee opened it. In reply to the sergeant, Brown said that there was no one on the premises except the family, but the sergeant was not satisfied, and, on making a search, found two men hiding in the bedrooms Twenty minutes later, not knowing of the sergeant’s visit, Constable Kearney visited the hotel, and found the men still there, with the result that the present ’ charge was laid. The licensee must have known the men were on the premises. There had been complaints about Sunday trading at Cobden, and the result was that surprise visits had to be made by the Greymouth police, acting independently of the constable at Cobden../ That was why the two visits occurred so close to each other. In the course of his evidence, Sergeant Murray stated that the two men caught had no excuse for being on the premises. Before leaving, witness warned the men to get away, and also warned the licensee not to let them stay on the premises. The men were prosecuted last Monday, and convicted for being on the premises. Constable Kearney, in reply to Mr Hannan, said he was informed by the licensee that the sergeant had just gone. x Mr Hannan contended that, on the evidence before the Court, there was no case to answer, and that there must be proof of an act of participation by the person charged. Mere suspicion, ho contended, was not enough. In this case, the two men were found upstairs, hiding behind bedroom doors, and there was no evidence whatsoever that the licensee knew they we'-e there. In regard to the question of the men still being on the premises when the police returned, the licensee said that it was only about five minutes later. However long it was, said Mr Hannan, it did not matter. The offence committed by the men, of being on the premises, was complete when they were found by the sergeant, therefore the licensee could not be convicted of aiding and abetting an offence which had already been committed.

The Senior-Sergeant maintained that the offence was continuous, and that the men were breaking the law all the time they were on the premises. The licensee had his opportunity, if the men would not leave after th© sergeant’s visit, to ask Constable Kearney to put them out. Mr Hannan argued that it could not be a continuing offence. If the men had stayed for two days, it might be, but, if a man were found at 10 p.m , and was still there an hour later, the police could not lay two informations.

The S.M. said that he would look into the case, and give his judgment this afternoon. When the Court resumed at two o’clock, Mr Meldrum referred to authorities on aiding and abetting, and also reviewed the evidence in the present case. The question was whether defendant, whose duty it was to look after his licensed house, and who was in charge of it, exercised the control which he ought to have exercised. There seemed to be no doubt- that he permitted the two men to remain on the premises. He exercised no control over them. He was lawfully entitled to ask them to leave, and, if they refused, to call upon the police to eject them. He allowed them to remain, and to try and avoid the police. There was no doubt that they were illegally on the premises, and subsequently they were convicted for being there after hours. On the authorities, there was no course open to him but to convict defendant of aid. ing and abetting. He would be finei £2, with 10/- costs. JUVENILE COURT. Appearing in the Juvenile Court, a offender was charged that at Greymouth, on October 29, ii 3 unlawfully converted to his own use a car valued at £l5O, the property of Andrew Kyle; that, at Dobson bn October 29, he stole three cases of petrol, valued at £3, the property of William Allen; that on October 27, at Greymouth, he stole a bicycle valued at £4/10/- the property of J. W. C. Kroening, and that on October 31, at Rotomanu, he stole motor tools and accessories valued at £5, the property of Andrew Kyle. On the charge of converting the car, accused was committed to the custody of the Child Welfare Superintendent for two year.-:, the first two months to be spent in a home. On the other counts, he was admonished and discharged, orders being made for the return of the stolen goods to their owners. The car was located at Rotomanu, where it had been abandoned. The bicycle was found in an old shed at Dobson, by Constable J. Rodgers, who also found the tools, in blackberry bushes along the Dobson road.