MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 March 1933, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES. The sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, to-day, was presided over by Mr. W. Meldrum, S.M. SeniorSergeant C. E. Roach represented the police. Two statutory first offenders, found without lawful excuse on licensed premises, after hours, were each convicted and ordered to pay costs. Harry Nutsford was charged with driving a. motor-cycle, -without a license, in Tainui Street, on February 26. He was also charged with driving after sunset, without head or tail lights. Defendant was lined 5/-, with 10/costs, on each charge. Charged that, on January 10, he procured a .22 rifle, without a. permit, Thomas Scalmer was fined 5/-, with 10/- costs. MAINTENANCE CASES. Applying for maintenance, separation, and guardianship orders, against her husband, John Sweeney McAlavey, Annie Emma McAlavey, of Greymouth, alleged that lie had failed to maintain her and their infant child, born on November 16, 1932; also that he was an habitual drunkard. Complainant stated that they were married in 1932. Nine days ago her husband gave up his job on relief work. The most he ever got on that job was 25/- per week. He used to hand it over to her, but she gave some of it back to him, in order to avoid rows. Since he gave up relief work, he had left the town, and she did not know where he was. She thought he was going to his sister at Wellington. For the past five months, they had been living with complainant’s mother. Defendant had said that he would not continue to maintain her.

in reply to the S.M., who asked what reason defendant gave for dropping his job, complainant said that her mother put him out of the house for coming home drunk. There was another reason. She intended to take proceedings for divorce, but had not yet commenced them. Defendant came home drunk pretty often, and she could bring evidence as to his drinking habits.

The S.M. adjourned the case for a week, to enable complainant to call witnesses.

An application for. the variation of a maintenance order was made by Charles Joseph Butler, labourer, Rewanui (Mr. A. M. Jamieson). The order was made at Invercargill on April 1, 1931, for the payment of 30/per week towards the maintenaec of his wife, and the arrears amounted to .£57 9s sd.

It was stated that, when the order was made, Butler was earning 22/6 per day, but he was now earning only £2 10s per week, and had no assets whatever. If the arrears were remitted, and the amount of the order varied, he considered that he would be in a position to meet his obligations. He could pay 15/- per week.

The S.M. said lie did not think the application should have been made to the Greymouth Court. The original order was made at Invercargill, less than, two years ago. Two applications had since been made there by defendant for a. variation of the order, and they had been refused. There was now an application before the Court at Invercargill, in connection with the disobedience of the order, and defendant’s evidence would be sent to the S.M. at Invercargill. It was a matter for the latter to decide, as he made the original order. Mr. Meldrum made no order on the application for variation.

THEFT CHARGES ADJOURNED. Appearing on remand, Arthur Goodall, 60, and George Thomas Goodall, 28, were charged that, on March 2, they were deemed to be rogues and vagabonds within the meaning of the Police Offences Act, 1927, in that they were found by night without lawful excuse in the enclosed yard of the premises of Charles Staffan, Blake Street, Blaketown. Mr T. F. Brosnan, who represented accused, raised the point that the yard was not enclosed, as the fence around it was incomplete. The Senior-Sergeant suggested that the information be amended, to charge the younger Goodall with being found in the building. He was actually in. the house, and his father was in a crouching attitude, outside in the yard, when they were discovered by the police. Mr Brosnan strongly objected to any amendment being made.

The S.M. said that, for the purposes of the charge laid, it was not sufficient that the yard was only partly fenced. The Senior-Sergeant stated that a new information could be laid, charging the younger Goodall with being - in the house, and his father with aiding and abetting. The S.M. said that there was nothing to prevent the police bringing a new information, if they wished to do so. Ho dismissed the information, as laid.

Accused were also charged that, on or about February 18, they stole a quantity of timber valued at £5/10/-, the property of Sotheran Brothers; and that, on or about February 18, they received a quantity of timber, valued at £5/10/-, the property of Sotheran Brothers, knowing the same Io have been dishonestly obtained. The Senior-Sergeant withdrew these informations, explaining that it had subsequently been found that some of the timber alleged to have been stolen was the property of Stratford. Blair and Co. Fresh informations had been laid.

Accused were then charged that, on February I.X. they stole limber valued at. 04/4/ . tin- property of Sotlieraii's Ltd., and (linl. on F<-lit’iiary is. (lies 1-ri-eiveil limber valued at. .0-1/1/-. tinpropei H of Sol hei a u's Ltd., knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. Accused elected Io lie tried by jury, amt pleaded not guilty.

They were also charged that, on February IS, they stole timber valued at 02. lhe property of Strafford, Blair and Co., and that, on February IS, they received limber valued at 02. knowing it io have been dishonestly obtained. These charges were for summary treatment, and accused pleaded not guilty.

Mr Brosnan staled Hint, owing io lh('. withdrawal of the original theft charge, and the laying of the fresh inforni.it ions, he had not had sufficient limo fo prepare a -defence in connection wish tip* summary charges. A 1.-irge ipianlity of limber had been . < izi d by Hie police I’nmi Goodall’s yard, and ii would lake some lime to trace it all. Goodall, jiinr., was a carpenter. and had worked for various employers. Counsel was, however, prepared Io agree io the hearing of lhe evidence for lhe prosecution in con noct ion with the charges in which accused had elected to be tried by a jury.

The Senior-Sergeant, said that Goodall, junr., had alleged that he secured the timber from three sawmills, and Mr Brosnan had had quite enough time to make enquiries a.t those mills. The police were prepared to go on with the cases, However, if all the charges were not. to be heard to-day, hi< suggested that, they should all be adjourned. It seemed, he said, as if Mr Brosnan wished (he police to "show their hand.” Mr Brosnan desired an adjournment for a. fortnight, but the police objected. on the ground that Sergeant Hodgins would then be away from mouth.'The S.M. said that one week should bo sufficient for Mr Brosnan, and adjourned the cases until next Monday. The Senior-Sergeant pointed out that the witnesses for the prosecution had been brought to Court, and would have to be paid. I The S.M. said that the Crown would have to pay them, meantime, but. if a conviction were recorded, an ord< r might bo made for the payment of costs. Tin- police Hum laid a new informal ion. charging George Thomas Goodall with being unlawfully on the premises of StaiTan. The hearing of this charge was also adjourned for a week. Bail was allowed to each accused, in his own recognisance of £25.