MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 July 1933, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY]’S GREYMOUTH CASES. Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., presided at to-day’s sitting of the Magistrate s Court at Greymouth. Senior-Sergeant C. E. Roach represented the police. • Seven statutory first offenders, caught on licensed premises at er hours, without lawful excuse, were each convicted and ordered to _ pay costs. One of them was also fined 10/-, with 10/- costs, for giving a false name to the police. Walter Randolph Case was. fined £l, with 10/- costs, on a charge ot failing to pay the unemployment levy. He was convicted and discharged on six other similar informations. Mr F. G. Davies, for the Labour DepaitmenT said that defendant had made no attempt to comply with the previsions of the Act. John Shearer was charged with using obscene language at Wallsend on the evening of Sunday, June lb, and pleaded “guilty, under protest. He stated that he m.et some friends, and had some liquor. He was willing to take out a prohibition order against himself. . The Senior-Sergeant said that the offence was committed at a time when women and children were coming from church. Constable Rodgers iemonstrated with Shearer, but the latter used further bad language. The S.M. said that he would take into consideration the facts that Shearer had recently left the hospital and that he had been unemployed He would be convicted and ordered to take out a prohibition order; also to pay 2/6 witness’s expenses.

DOBSON MINERS FINED. That, on June 12, he had in his possession a part of a cigaiette in the Dobson mine, in which safety lamps were required by the Coal Mines Act, 1925 was the information laid against Alfred Gibb, by the manager of the Grey Valley Collieries, Ltd., Charles Hunter, for whom Mr M. B. Janies appeared. Gibb pleaded guilty. Mr James said that defendant was searched, and part of a cigarette was found in his pocket. The mine was particularly dangerous, and it was in the interests of safety that the men should comply with the regulations. Defendant stated that he was not aware that the cigarette was in his pocket, and he had no idea how it got there. He had no intention of smoking in the mine. The S.M. said that the regulations were very strict, owing to the danger resulting from anyone smoking in the .mine. He fined Gibb 10/-, with 10/Court costs and 10/6 solicitor’s fee. • Matthew Muir was charged with having a lucifer match in his possession, in the Dobson mine, on June 12. Defendant did not appear. , Mr James said that the match was found in .Muir’s pocket, when he was searched. Charles Hunter stated that it was compulsory to use safety lamps, owing to the dangerous nature of the mine. Edward Hill, underviewer, said that he searched defendant, and found a live niatch in his hip pocket. Muir stated that he did not know, the match was there, and also said that he felt his pocket before he went into the mine, but could not find any matches. <nz defendant was fined 10/-, with 10/Court costs, and 10/6 solicitor’s fee.

MAINTENANCE CASES. A relief . worker, Henry James Coburn, applied for a variation of the maintenance order for the support of bis wife. The order was made on November 2, 1931, for the payment of 15/- per week. It was varied-on October 3,-1932 to 10/. per week for six months, and a further variation was now atsked .for. , It was also requested that the arrears since May 1 be remitted, as. Coburn could not pay them. The S.M. remitted the arrears and varied the order to 10/- per week. Lewis John Gibbins applied for the variation of a maintenance order m force against him ipr the payment of 12/6 per week, for the support of a child. The order was made on May 16, 1932, and defendant was also ordered to pay £4 past maintenance, £l2/13/- birth expenses, and £3/3/solicitor’s fee. The arrears to January 16 were £4l/3/6. Gibbins stated that he had been in hospital, after a serious accident, and was now for fit for only- light work. He could not secure any suitable employment. Th e S.M. suspended, the order for six months..

John H. Waddell applied for the variation of an order made at Christchurch, some years ago, for the payment of £2 per week towhrds the support of his wife and infant son, the arrears of which amounted to over £5OO. Mr M. B. James appeared for Waddell. It was stated that the parties were married in 1926, and lived together at Christchurch, until early in 1928. In June of that year, two or three months after the maintenance order was made, the wife petitioned for a divorce, on the ground of misconduct, and she secured a decree nisi. In October, 1928, Waddell camo to the West Coast, i He stated that during the past four and a-half years, his earnings had averaged about £2 per week, and he could not continue to pay maintenance. He had no assets, and owed about £5O to other people. He denied the statement in his wife’s evidence, which was taken at Christchurch, to the effect that he was an inveterate gambler. ’ He also denied that he had tried to conceal himself on the West Coast. He was married again in February last. Asked by the Maintenance Officer whether, having the responsibility of supporting his wife and child, he thought it was a manly thing to do, to contract the responsibility of maintaining a second wife, Waddell ” replied that it depended on the circumstances. Mr James pointed out that the thing that counted was Waddell’s ability to pay, and not his character. The Maintenance Officer said it was maintained that the maintenance of the first wife and child should take precedence over the maintenance of the second wife. The S.M. said it appeared rather hopeless, to ask Waddell to pay the arrears, but he deserved little consideration in' regard to continuing the maintenance payments. He was in financial difficulties, and was not earning a normal wage, yet, he saddled himself with further responsibility by getting married again. His first wife was in ill-health, and had a son who was now going to school and had to be supported. Her relatives did not appear to be able to help her very much, the consequence -being that she was dependent for the time being upon the moneys paid by Waddell. The arrears would be cancelled, and the original order would

be varied for twelve months ,by reducing it to £l/10/- per week. CHARGES WITHDRAWN. Michael Conza and William Bernard Hands were charged that, on July 1, at Greymouth, they were deemed to be rogues and vagabonds, within the meaning of the Police.Offences Act 1929, in that they were found, without lawful excuse, in the enclosed yard of Loyola Hales. Defendants were arrested at 10.30 p.m. on Satui - da, The Senior-Sergeant: We don’t wish to proceed any further with the charges. The men were found in very suspicious circumstances, on Saturday night, in the coal yard, and were taken into custody by the owner of the yard. It was subsequently stated that someone gave them permission to take coal to tide them over the week-end, so they were released. The S.M.: What is it you ask for? The Senior-Sergeant: To withdraw both charges. The request was granted.

UNWANTED VISITOR. • “Not guilty!” pleaded William Allan, when charged that on July 2, at Greymouth, he assaulted Cecil Alison Owen Jones; also that, on July 2, he was found, without lawful excuse, but in circumstances that did not disclose the commission of or intention to commit any other offence, in a dwelling-house occupied by Jones, in Willis Street. The Senior-Sergeant said that Allan with a companion, went to Jones s house, at one o’clock yesterday morning. Both men were unknown to Jones. They knocked at the door, and Jones answered. They said, “Goodnight,” and Jones said, “Good-night.” Allan then said “We have brought you a drink.” Jones replied “I don’t want a a drink. Get away out of this.” They refused to leave, and Allan started to argue. When again told to leave, Allan commenced' to abuse Jones, took his coat off/and went to strike Jones. The latter closed with him, and they had a scuffle on the verandah. Allan drew a bottle full of beer out of his podket, and attempted to strike Jones on the head with it. He then threw the bottle at Jones, and it grazed him and smashed on the gatepost. Allan’s companion cleared out when the scuffle started, and after throwing the bottle Allan also made off, but was followed by Jones. The police had' heen communicated with, and Allan was later arrested.

In the course of ' his evidence, Jones stated that Allan alleged he had been invited to the house, where a game of card's was in progress. Witness went in and made enquiries, but it was denied that Allan had received an invitation. Jones stated that ‘‘he did not know Allan from a bar of soap,” and had, never met him in his life before. It was the third Saturday night Allan had been near the house, unknown to witness. His wife did not tell him, because she said she did not want to cause any trouble. The Senior-Sergeant: What was he hanging about there for ? —I have no idea. He has never been given any encouragement by me or by my wife. William Reynolds said that he was one of those who were playing cards at Jones’s house. He said that he saw the scuffle on the verandah, but it was dark, and he could not identify the. man who was struggling with Jones. Witness tried to separate them, and the man then tried to kick Jones in the stomach. He did' not hear Jones threaten the man. Constable Hill said that he was called to Jones’s residence about 1.30 a.m., and accompanied Jones to the rear of a place in Chapel Street, wher e Allan was questioned. He admitted having been at Jones’s place, but said that he had been invited to go there. Witness saw broken glass at Jones’s place, and a beer bottle had apparently been smashed. Giving his version, Allan said that, last Wednesday or Thursday, Mrs. Jones and another woman came to his place, and Mrs. Jones asked him if he knew the whereabouts of Joe Ellison, as she wished to see him urgently. On Saturday night, he met two men, who told him that they had been invited to Jones’s place, and asked him to go. They decided not to go, however, and had a few drinks. On his way home, Allan said, he saw Jones’ home lighted up, and went in to tell Mrs. Jones that Ellison was at Waiuta. He admitted that he had had quite, a few drinks. He tapped at the door, and Jones came out. He asked to’see Mrs. Jones, and they argued the point. “The next thing I knew was that I got a bang in the eye,” said Allan. He alleged that Jones struck him on the side of the head with a bottle. He admitted that he threw a bottle at Jones, but denied that he tried to hit him with it. He said that there were three to one against him, and he thought he would “put the wind up them, anyway,” by throwing the bottle. He said that he was charged with being on the premises without lawful excuse, but he contended that it was sufficient that Mrs. Jones had asked him to go along, as she wanted to know urgently where Ellison was. Allan said that he was supposed to have assaulted Jones, but he pointed out that Jones was not marked, whereas he (Allan) had a black eye, a split lip, and loose teeth. He got “well and truly smacked,” and did not know where he was for a while. He denied that he went there looking for trouble. He did not leave when told to do so, as Jones “did not say it very nicely.” The Senior-Sergeant: I don’t think anybody would have talked very nicely to a drunken man at the door, at one o’clock in the morning! Allan said that ■it would probably have been better for his case, if Mrs. Jones had been brought to Court.

The Senior-Sergeant replied that she was sick, and could not attend the Court. He said that Allan had been convicted for fighting at Greymouth a couple of years ago. He was just drunk and cantankerous, and wanted to push himself into the party at Jones’s place. He made trouble, and had to be thrown out on to the street. He retaliated by attempting to strike Jones with the bottle of beer, and then threw the bottle at him. Jones was perfectly justified in ejecting him, and in using force to do it. The S.M. said there was no doubt that Allan had no right to behave as he did, at one o’clock on Sunday morning. He was under the influence of liquor, but that was no excuse. He would be fined £1 on the charge of assault, and convicted and discharged on the second charge. He was also ordered to pay 8/- witness’s expenses. Allan asked for time in which to pay, and was allowed a fortnight.