MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 December 1933, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES. Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., presided oyer to-day’s sitting of the Magistrates Court at Greymouth. Senior-Seigeant E. Quayle represented the police. • John Ross, who was arrested on Saturday evening, on Mawhera Quay, was charged with using obscene language. He pleaded not guiltyConstable McDonald stated that at 6.15 p.m. accused caused a disturbance, and adopted a threatening a - tude to another man. He al»o used the language complained about. Accused stated that lie had drinks, and they upset him. man hit him on the jaw, when he was not looking, and he did not remember anything else. He did not remenibe using the language. The S.M. stated that the use of such language could not be allowed. He inflicted a fine of 10/-. Fourteen days were allowed for payment.

STOLEN MINING TOOLS. Walter Meadowcroft, miner, was charged that, on July 26, at Blackball, he stole two Universal picks, or the total value -of 11/-, the property ot the Blackball Coal Company. On behalf of accused, Mr 1. F. Brosnan pleaded guilty. The Senior-Sergeant stated that tools had been missed by the company for some time. Accused’s gold-claim was visited by Constable Henrickson, on November 14, and he was found in possession of the picks. He was very frank about the matter, and' admitted

having stolen the picks. Mr Brosnan stated that the facts were rather unusual. There was a family of eight, and accused and his stepfather were the only two contributing to their support. Accused had been working for the company, but he, and a number of others, had been out of work since July. Accused took the picks, to endeavour to win a little gold, and any money he earned went towards the upkeep of the home. It was a case where leniency could be extended, and accused was entitled to the provisions of the First Offenders’ Probation Act. It was in his favour that he had been quite truthful and frank about the matter. The S.M. said he would take into consideration the fact that nothing was previously known against accused, and that he was one of two helping to support a large family. He would be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within six months; also to pay 2/6 police expenses. An order was made for the return of the picks to the owners. CONVICTED FOR RECEIVING. James McNicol, miner, was charged (1) that, on June 3, at Blackball, he stole a shovel valued at 10/6, the property of the Blackball Coal Company; (2) that, on July 26, at Blackball, he received a shovel valued at 10/6 and a grubber valued' at 8/-, the property of the Blackball Coal Company, knowing them to have been dishonestly obtained; (3) that, on July 26, at Blackball, he stole a grubber valued at 8/-, the property of the Blackball Coal Company. Mr Brosnan, for accused, pleaded not guilty. John Quinn, mine manager at Blackball, stated that tools had been missed by the company, particularly about July 22 and June 3. On November 14, with Constable Henrickson, witness visited a gold-claim at Soldiers’ Gully, in which accused was one of the partners. Witness found the shovel and grubber there, bearing the company’s brand. Constable Henrickson gave corroborative evidence. Accused stated that the tools were left in the workshop by his father-in-law, William McDonald, eight years ago. McDonald was foreman carpenter for the company for about fifteen years, and he was now in Christchurch. Witness first used the grubber about two years ago, on the school ground. He knew the tools were branded, but thought that McDonald had a right to them, as he was the foreman carpenter. The S.M. said that the main defence to the charge was that accused found the grubber and the shovel in his father-in-law’s house eight years ago, that he stayed in the hou;se tor two years, and .took them with him when he left. The manager of the mine said that the tools were new, and were branded with a brand that had been in use at the mine for only one year; he also showed that the point of the shovel had not been injured in any way by use- It was obvious that the tools were not old. The fact that they bore a recent brand showed that they had not long left the company’s possession, and absolutely, to his mind, disproved the assertion of accused, that the tools were found in his father-in-law’s workshop eight years ago. In any case, they were not carpenter’s tools, but were mining tools. Accused, apparently, was not working at the bins at the time shovels were missed, nor was he near the mine when the grubber was missed, but there was no question that, even if he did' not steal them himself, he took them, knowing them to have been stolen. The new brand was sufficient to let him know that the tools were the company’s tools, especially as he had worked at the mine. The evidence was quite clear, that, if accused did not steal the tools, he obtained them, knowing them to have been stolen. He would be convicted on the charge of receiving stolen goods, and would be fined £l, the goods to be returned to the company.

TOBACCO IN MINE. That, on November 23, at Rewanui, in a part of the Liverpool Colliery where safety lamps are nsed, he had in his possession cigarette tobacco, was the information laid against John Devescovi, by the Inspector of Mines (Mr C. J. Strongman). Defendant pleaded guilty, and said that the offence was a pure accident. He generally changed his clothing in the bath-house, and had two coats, one he took into the mine and the other he travelled to work in. He happened to be talking to a man in the bath-house, and made a cigarette at the same time. As a rule, he never took tobacco from the bath-house, but on this occasion he placed it in the pocket of the wrong coat, where it was found when he was searched. No one was more surprised than himself when the tobacco was found in his pocket.

Inspector Strongman said' that both coats were of similar colour, and a mistake was liable to occur. Defendant bad a good character, and it was not suggested that he was attempting to take smoking material into the mine. Still, the law must be observed.

The S.M.: Were there any matches in the pocket?—No.

The S.M. said he would accept defendant’s explanation, that the offence was due entirely to error. He would be convicted and ordered to pay 10/- costs. SHOT-FIRING REGULATIONS. Keren Floyd Howey Walker was charged that, on November 6, at Wallsend, being an authorised shot-firer employed in the Wallsend mine, he failed to keep a correct record of the number of shots fired by him, and the number of miss shots, as provided by Regulation 234 (1) (f) under the Coal

Mines Act, 1925. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and was represented by Mr M. B. James. Inspector Strongman stated that, on November 29, the Chief Inspector and himself visited the mine, to investigate some rumours with regard to shotfiring. On examining the book kept at the surface, it was found that an issue of 25 detonators to defendant was entered, and the same number was entered as having been returned.

They discovered, however, that he had fired several shots, and had, in addition, left behind three shots not fired. On another date, the Chief Inspector and witness went underground and on looking up the record they found an entry on the form, signed by defendant, to the effect that he had charged 10 shots and fired 10 shots. From evidence in their possession, they knew that he had left behind three unfired shots, which were fired some days later by the manager. The reason given was that the cable used to convey the current was faulty. To Mr James: The book was more than a mere statistical record. It wa’s

devised for the purpose of ensuring safety, and to keep trace of all shots. It stopped ithings from getting altogether lax, and kept a check on the indiscriminate throwing about of explosives and detonators. It prevented Rafferty rules. In the present case, the outside record was not correct, and the inside record was neither correct nor complete. In the course of his evidence, Walker said that he tried to fire a round of shots before the end of the shift, but the cable was in bad condition, and to this reason he ascribed the nonfiring. He left the face, and met the incoming shot-firer and underviewer. He explained to them that he had left three shots in the face, with faulty cable, and asked the shot-firer to book them for him. Defendant submitted that he provided for safety by telling the incoming men about the shots, by fencing the place off, and by leaving a note stating what shots there were to fire. In reply to the Inspector, defendant stated that he borrowed 10 detonators underground, to replace those he fired, and therefore returned 25. The Inspector: How can you expect anybody to follow entries like that? What record did you enter in regard to the number of plugs in those shots? Defendant replied that he did not make any record of the number of plugs in the three unfired shots, but put down 50 plugs for the other ten shots. The Inspector said that a mess had been made of the records, both on the surface and underground. The whole method was slipshod, and defendant did not care. A halt would have to be called, somewhere. The S.M. stated that defendant was charged with failing to keep a correct record of the shots fired by him, and a number of miss shots, on November 6. The clause in the regulations required that a daily record should be kept of the number of shots, the number of misfires, and the number of cartridges in each shot. It was put forward as a defence that it was not necessary to record a misfire, unless it was due to certain causes, but the regulations also contemplated a misfire due to faulty cable. There was no doubt, as the Inspector said, that the regulations were all made with a view to providing safety in the working of the mines. Tt was, at best, dangerous work, and a great number of precautionary regulations had been made. There was a general penalty imposed for a breach of any of the regulations, a fine not exceeding £lO for a first offence, and not exceeding £2O for a second offence. He must hold that there had been a breach of the regulations. Defendant would be fined £l, with 10/- costs. UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES. On the information of the Inspector of Factories (Mr F. G. Davies), Herbert Rattray was charged that, on or about October 2, at Greymouth, he failed to deduct or cause to be deducted from salaries or wages paid by him, the unemployment charge imposed in respect thereof by Section 12 of the Amendment Act, as set out in Clause 13 of the Unemployment Relief Tax Regulations, 1931. Defendant was also charged with failing to pay into Unemployment Fund the emergency unemployment charge within three days after the deduction of same, as provided in sub-clause 3 of Clause 13 of the regulations. Mr M. 13. James, for defendant, pleaded guilty to the first information, and Mr Davies withdrew the second. Mr Janies stated that the non-deduc-tion of the charge had been a pure oversight, and defendant had since paid the amount due.

Mr Davies said that the Inspector visited defendant’s premises on October 30, and found that no payment had been made since the visit of the previous inspector in Fehruaiy of this year. The Unemployment Board took the view that employers should not wait for the inspector’s visit, before paying the charge. The amount had since been paid in this case.

Defendant was fined 10/-, with 10/costs.

Hubert Tyrell Turtill was charged that, on or about October 2, at Greymouth, he failed to deduct or cause to bo deducted from salaries or wages paid by him, the emergency unemployment charge. Mr T. F. Brosnan, on behalf of defendant, pleaded guilty, and said that the failure to pay the tax had been due to facts which were set out in a statement he handed to the S.M. Defendant had been doing his best for a considerable time, and hoped that bush ness matters would brighten for him. The chief reason for non-payment was that, the wages in respect of which the tax was due, had not been paid >n full.

Mr Davies said that the inspector visited defendant’s premises last February, and there was then a shortage of ;C2 10/-. Many visits were made, to impress upon defendant, the necessity of deducting the tax, and ultimately the money was paid. When the inspector visited iho premises in November. lie found that .£4 11/2 had not. been paid. It was unfortunate that defendant did not. take notice of the first advice given to. him. The Board desired to impress upon employ-

ers Iho necessity for actually paying the tax at the time the wages were paid. He asked for an order for the payment of ,£4 11/2.

Defendant was fined 10/-, with 10/costs, and was also ordered to pay £4 11/2.