MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 31 July 1933, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S yGREYMOUTH CASES. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth was held, this morning, before Mr W. Meldrum, S.M. Seigeaftt M. Hodgins represented the police. , _ . Simms McNally was charged that at Denniston on July 6. he did unlawfully buy GJ dwts of virgin gold from one Thomas Blake, when neither he nor the seller were holders of gold dealer’s licenses. A letter was received from the accused, pleading guilty, and electing to be dealt with summarily. Detective-Sergeant T. E. Holmes said that the accused and two assistants came from the North Island, and thev had been canvassing the West Coast buying up gold and jewellery. He was only 25 years of age, and appeared a thoroughly respectable kmd of man. He had not been in any kind of trouble before. No expenses had been incurred. In view of his previous record, accused was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within twelve months, the gold to be forfeited to the Crown. ASSAULT CHARGE FAILS. James Kildare was charged that at Maori Gully, on July 2, he did assault William Burns. Accused, who was represented by Mr J. W. Hannan, pleaded not guilty. In evidence, Burns, who is aged 63, said lie was a gold prospector, residing at Maori Gully. The accused came into his hut on the day in question and accused witness of being on his claim. He named Bob McLagan as having seen witness on the claim. Witness told accused he was a liar and ordered him out of the house. When they got out on to the verandah, accused rushed at witness, and a fight ensued. Witness could not say how many times he was struck, but he finished up with a black eye, and did not go to work for a fortnight after. On another occasion, the accused had come to witness’ hut, and caused trouble. His disposition did not suit witness, and the further away he kept, the better friends they would be. Accused rushed witness when he reached the verandah. To Mr Hannan: Witness chased the accused out of the hut, as he had accused witness of being a thief. He did not call the accused a black , but a. black —. Witness rose from his tea table to chase Kildare out, and it was at Kildare’s invitation that he went outside to fight. He was looking for. something to hit Kildare with, when the accused rushed him. They were then on the verandah.

Harry Ornio, gold prospector, said he was having tea. with his mate Burns when Kildare came in. Witness did not hear any bad language used, though he heard Burns call the other man a liar. He went outside when he heard them fighting, and separated them on two occasions, once when Burns was down, and the other when Kildare was ( down. To Mr Hannan: All he remembered was that Kildare asked Burns if the latter had been on his (Kildare’s) claim that day. Burns followed the accused out of the hut. He did not see Burns throw a. teapot at Kildare, nor did he see Burns pick up a piece of wood to strike Kildare. It was an even fight. Constable J. Rodgers said that as the result of a complaint made by Burns that Kildare had assaulted him he interviewed Kildare, and secured a statement from him. In that statement, he stated that Burns threw a tea pot at him as he was going out tile door; that Burns tried to hit him with a piece of wood, and later with a hammer, but that he (Kildare) closed with Burns and stopped him. Mr Hannan said he did not think there was any necessity to call the defendant. The defendant said that Burns called him a black , and that he followed the defendant out of the hut, with the result that a fight took place, Kildare endeavouring to stop Burns hitting him with a piece of wood. The Magistrate said there’ was no doubt that Burns had the right to order Kildare out of his house, and to use sufficient force to do so. Burns admitted in his evidence that he wen. outside, at Kildare’s invitation to fight, and that no fight would have taken place had he remained at the table. It would have been different had Kildare entered the hut and struck Burns. It seemed that both were equally to blame in the matter. The charge would therefore, be dismissed, each party to pay its own costs.

MAINTENANCE CASE. Samuel Chambers Rotlfera was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order made at Greymouth, in respect of his wife and five children, the arrears to March 27, 1933, amounting to £lO4/13/-. Mr T. F. Brosnan, who appeared for Mrs Rothera, said that since January 16, no moneys had been paid, and he was now informed that defendant had been refused employment under the unemployment scheme, as he had received £ll at Inangahua on the understanding that he had a wife and five children to maintain. None of that money was paid towards that purpose. Counsel’s instructions were that defendant was now living at. Nelson, and tiiat the other woman, as would be remembered, was concerned in a previous case, against defendant, was living there with him. He suggested that the arrears might be cancelled, and the order reduced to .one of 30/- a week. The S.M. That cannot be done unless defendant makes application. Mr Brosnan said it. was apparent that, defendant could not pay the arrears. He suggested that the Unemployment Board be asked to employ defendant, as one having a. wife and five children to support. Defendant had written counsel, stating that if his wno would not accept a certain offer he made, he would get a doctor’s certificate to the effect that on account of heart trouble he was able to do only (he lightest of work, and she would then get nothing. Later in the same letter he said he would not. pay one penny maintenance for her as long as he lived.

The case was adjourned until August 2.8, TRAFFIC BREACHES. Leslie James Howard, Gordon Dalziel, and John Guy, proceeded against by Albert Edward Sloss, Traffic Inspector for the Borough of Greymouth, were each convicted and fined 10/with 12/- costs and 10/6 solicitor’s fee, for driving motor vehicles on June 17, without licenses. Costs 10/were allowed in Dalzell’s case, in

which evidence was given by Inspector Sloss. John Henry Clark, Traffic Inspector employed by the Main Highways, gave evidence in the other two cases. Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for Inspector Sloss. TIMBER SKIDS ON ROAD. The Ahaura Sawmills Co., Ltd., were charged that on May 9, they did, without lawful excuse and without the written permission of the Grey County Council, having control of the Ahaura-Haupiri highway, make an obstacle on the road near Ahaura, by placing timber skids thereon. The information was laid by Albert Edward Sloss, Traffic Inspector for the County, who was represented by Mr T. F. Brosnan. John Higgins, Engineer to the Grey County Council, said that, on May 9, he saw the skids in question on the road, and they had been erected without the authority of the Council. At the time they were erected the company had received a. letter from the Council ordering the removal of other skids they had on the road, and the skids mentioned in the charge had been erected in defiance of that letter. The skids were still there on July 14. Mr Brosnan said it was desired that the charge be a warning that permission to erect skids on County roads must, be obtained from the Council, and a. heavy penalty was not pressed for. Defendants were convicted and fined £l, with 10/- costs, and 10/6 solicitor’s fee.