MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 March 1934, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES. The sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, to-day, was comparatively brief. Mr H. Morgan, S.M., presided. A statutory first offender, arrested on Mawhera Quay on Saturday for drunkenness, was fined 5/-, the amount of his bail, in default 24 hours’ hard labour. , Four statutory first offenders, found after hours on licensed premises, were each fined 5/-, with costs. A third offender was fined £2, with costs. William Routhan, licensee of the Helvetia Hotel, Goldsborough, was fined £2, with costs, for selling liquor after hours on February 24. Two other charges, of operating the premises after hours, and exposing liquor for sale, were withdrawn by the police. The barman, Edward Spencer, was fined £2, with costs, for unlawfully supplying liquor. . . Evidence regarding his visit to the hotel, at 8 p.m., was given by Constable Dougherty, who said that he found three men in the bar. Two had glasses of beer in their hands, and there was a bottle of whisky and a glass on the bar in front of the third man. Mr Hannan pleaded guilty on behalf of the licensee, the barman, and one of the men, who was charged with aiding and abetting the barman in the ■commission of the offence. The other two men, charged with being unlawfully on the premises, were not represented. • The three men found in the bar were each fined 5/-, with costs. The police expenses amounted to 2/6, and each of the defendants was ordered to pay sixpence towards them.

INTOXICATED MOTORIST.

POLICE WARNING UNHEEDED.

Disregard of a warning from two police constables, at Greymouth, on Saturday evening, proved inconvenient and expensive for Colin Frederick McDonald, 31, labourer, of Rapahoe. He was arrested, spent the week-end in custody, and appeared to-day, charged with being intoxicated while in charge of a motor-car, on Mawhera Quay. Accused pleaded “not guilty, so far as intoxication is concerned.” Senior-Sergeant E. Quayle stated that he haff previously been told by accused that he intended to plead guilty, and medical evidence had therefore not been called. The S.M. (to accused): You say you were in charge of the car, but were not intoxicated ?—Yes.

The Senior-Sergeant said that accused had been in custody since Saturday night. The S.M. adjourned the case for fifteen minutes to allow evidence to be called.

Dr. W. A. Bird stated that he was called to the police station, and examined accused at 7.55 p.m. on Saturday. McDonald was suffering from the effects of alcohol, and was not fit to drive a motor-car. Asked if he wished to question the doctor, McDonald stated that he had only four medium glasses of stout on Saturday, as a stimulant, having the last drink at 5.45 p.m. He had been in hospital until last Wednesday, and his nerves were not good. The S.M. explained that questions could be asked at that stage, and McDonald could make any statement he wished later. Accused had no questions to ask. the witness. Constable Kearney stated that, at 7.20 p.m. he and Constable Robinson saw accused on Mawhera Quay. He was partly leaning against a Ford car, and was accompanied by another man, who had been convicted this morning for drunkenness. Both men were waving their arms about, suggesting that they were having an argument. "Vyitness approached them, and asked who was in charge of the car. Accused replied, “I am.” Witness said, “You have been drinking, and are not fit to drive a car.” Accused replied that he was all right, told witness to mind his own business, and said that he would drive the car. Witness cautioned him that if he attempted to drive the car, he would be arrested. Constable Robinson and witness then moved back on to the footpath. Accused continued his conversation with his companion for less than a minute, and then boarded the car and took charge of the wheel. Witness then arrested McDonald. Accused protested, and his wife, who was in the car with two children, also protested. Accused did not want to leave the car, and it was suggested that his wife should go along t© the police station with him. She did so, and they arrived at the station about 7.30 p.m. Accused demanded the persence of Dr. Bennett. The latter was communicated with, but said he was too busy to go to the police station, and suggested that Dr. Bird be secured. The latter arrived about 7.55 p.m. On the way to the police station, accused said to witness, “A man should take to you!” McDonald admitted having had four glasses of stout on Saturday afternoon, but his appeaarnce suggested to witness that he had had far more liquor than he admitted having had. Accused said that he could not remember swearing at the constable. He could not account for that.

Constable Robinson gave corroborative evidence, in the course of which he said that, when warned not to get into the car, as he was under the influence of liquor, accused wanted to know who was going to stop him. He said that he was sober, and would drive the car to Rapahoe. He was warned' a second time, but got into the driver’s seat, and was arrested. Witness was quite satisfied that accused was not in a fit state to drive a car. McDonald stated that the man to whom he was talking was a complete stranger. He did not want the man near the car, as he (McDonald) was going home. The other man was intoxicated.

The S.M.: That does not affect the case against you at all. The case against you is that you were intoxicated, and that you were in charge of this car.

Accused: Well, I plead guilty. The Senior-Sergeant said that McDonald was a relief worker, with a wife and four children. He had been in the lock-up since Saturday. A doctor’s fee of £1 1/- had been incurred through the examination of accused at the police station, and a further £1 1/- by the attendance of the doctor in the Court to-day.

In reply to the S.M., accused said that he owned the car. which was fully paid for. It was the first time he had had it out for two months. He had tried to sell it, but it was an old “tin Lizzie,” and he could not find a buyer.

The S.M. said that there was no doubt accused had been intoxicated, and McDonald must know that being in charge of a car while intoxicated was a very serious offence, the punishment for which was usually very

heavy. He was liable to a fine of £lOO, or three months’ imprisonment, and was liable to have his driver’s license either suspended or cancelled. Perhaps, in the state accused was in when the police accosted him, it was rather fortunate that they did stop him driving, otherwise he might have had an accident involving injury to himself and his wife and children. It was his first offence, however, and it would be taken into consideration that he was not actually driving the car, although he was in such a state of mind that he intended to drive it, and argued the point with the police. Nevertheless, this class of offence had to be stopped, and the Court must see that adequate punishment was imposed in the endeavour to stop them. By pleading not guilty, accused had incurred further expense, by having the doctor called to give evidence against him. Accused would be.convicted and fined £lO, and ordered to pay £2 2/expenses.

McDonald said that he was on relief work, and asked for time to pay. If he could sell the car, he would pay sooner.

The S.M. allowed two months for payment.

Accused: Can I have my name suppressed? The S.M.: No. It is not a case for the suppression of the name.