MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 December 1934, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES Mr. H. Morgan, S.M., presided over to-day’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth. Senior-Sergeant E. Quayle represented the police. James Cowe was ordered to pay off £l5 arrears of maintenance, at the rate of 10/- per week, with the first payment of £1 on December 22. An offender caught on licensed premises after hours was fined 25/-, with 12/- costs. He had previous convictions. George Stewart was charged with allowing six cows to wander on the road at Kumara, on December 9. Mr. M. B. James appeared for defendant, and pleaded guilty. He stated that the cows went over Fahey’s land, and reached the road through a defective fence. A boy was on his way to bring the, cows home, when the constable found them on the road. The Senior-Sergeant said that defendant had previous convictions for similar offences.

The S.M. stressed the danger to motorists, caused by wandering cattle. Pences must be kept in order, and stock kept off the road. Defendant would be fined £l, with 12/- costs and 2/6 police expenses. On the information of the Main Highways Traffic Inspector (Mr. J. H. Clark), George Hahn was fined £l. with 10/- costs, for allowing two horses to wander on the road at Ahaura, on November 20.

FIGHT AT COBDEN Roy William Rooney and John F. Warren were charged with fighting in Bright Street, Cobden, on December 8, and each pleaded guilty under provocation. Constable Kearney said that he saw defendants /fighting, and separated them. There was no one else about at the time. The men were not drunk, but had had enough liquor to make them quarrelsome. Rooney said that Warren “hauled off and hit him left and right,” and he retaliated. About ten minutes previously, he stopped Warren hitting another man, and he thought that Warren still had that incident in his head, when he struck witness.

Warren said that he did not know Rooney, and had never said a word out of place to him in his life. Rooney had “picked on to him” on different occasions, without any reason at all. Rooney used bad language to him on December 8, and he struck Rooney for that reason. The S.M. said it seemed that both men were to blame. Fortunately, there was no one else about at the time, except the constable. Defendants -would each be fined 10/-, with 10/costs.

MARRIED COUPLE CHARGED. Michael Canice Rooney, of Blackball, and his wife, Elva Mary Rooney, were charged that on or about October 29, 1934, they did steal one' pot, two rugs, two dinner plates, one dessert plate, two saucers, and one washboard, of a total value of £2/4/-, the property of Ernest William Riddiford. Defendants, who were represented by Mr M. B. James, pleaded not gui|ty, and elected to be dealt with summarily.

Ernest William Riddiford, labourer, of Ngahere, said that about 18 months ago, Rooney came to witness and asked witness to rent a house situated at Ngahere to him. Witness agreed to a rental of 10/- a week. When witness ,handed over the house, he and his daughter locked up a sideboard containing some of witness’s property. The house was furnished. Witness told defendants that the sideboard was not to bo interfered with, and this was agreed upon. Witness loaned defendants two rugs when they took the house. A quantity of witness’s property was also left unlocked in the washhouse, which was left unlocked, defendants to be responsible for the property. The hotel, where witness was staying, was burnt down in March, and witness had to go and live in his house. He had to to take action to secure 1 possession, and did not take over the house until early in November. The sideboard was open, the lock having been broken, and numerous articles of crockery were missing. Witness detailed the articles. The two rugs loaned to defendants

were also missing. Two pots, a washing board, and some tools were gone from the washhouse, also some timber and silverpine posts from the yard and fence. Witness had a search warrant issued, and it was executed on November 15, at defendants’ house at Blackwater. Witness went with the constable, and identified two dinner plates, one dessert plate, two saucers, a pot, two rugs, and a washboard, of a total value of £2/4/-. Defendants had no authority to take the articles. About £6 worth of articles was missing. To Mr James: Witness knew defendant, Michael Rooney, was on the dole, and %3-d a wife and three children to maintain. Witness did not take an inventory of all that was in the sideboard when the defendants took over the house. There were nine large plates and seven smaller ones, of the same brand. There were also six cups and eight saucers of the one brand. Defendants agreed not to touch the crockery. Witness loaned the rugs to. defendants. He did not give the rugs to them. Witness had three pots, which were put in the washhouse, which not locked. The washboard was also in the washhouse. Defendant went out of the house on October 29. Witness secured judgment for £lB from defendants on October 23. Rooney would not let Witness lock up the washhouse, when he gave a month’s notice. Rooney did not threaten to throw witness off the property, because witness was allegedly abusing defendant’s wife. Witness had two plates with him when die search was made, and identified the articles produced from the samples. Denis Duggan was a nephew , of witness, and witness gave him the key on one occasion to take a grate from a stove. The lock of the sideboard was broken when witness took < possession. ;

To the S.M.: There was no mark on the property to identify it as his. They were similarly patterned to witness’s. Defendants did not have the use of the crockery or pots. Witness did not have the key of the house when he went to take possession. It had been left at the store. All the doors were locked, but he could not say if the windows were locked. j

Mary Maud Clarke, daughter of Riddiford, corroborated the evidence of her Lather that defendants were given the loan of the rugs, stating that she was present when the house was handed over to defendants. Witness did speak to Mrs Rollings, mother of Mrs Rooney, but the later did not say that the Rooneys were going to return the rugs when they were asked. Constable G. J, Robinson said that

as a result of a complaint from Riddiford, a search warrant was issued, and he and ' Constable Hendrickson executed the warrant at defendant’s home at Blackball. Mrs Rooney was the only one at home, and told the police they were quite at liberty to search without a warrant. She said this, Jinowing what the search was for, and before a warrant was produced. Riddiford identified the articles mentioned in the charge as his, but before any mention was made of rugs, Mrs Rooney said she had two rugs, which were being washed before being sent back. The rugs were in use on the beds. She said she had had a wash board and pot since she had been married, and had bought the crockery at John Burns at Christmas. Rooney was met later, on his way home, and made a statement that as Lar as he knew there was none of Riddiford’s property at his place. Both defendants were quite frank when questidned. Frederick William Davidson, shop assistant, employed at John Burns, Greymouth, said he knew Mrs Rooney well. Witness could not have sold the plates (produced) to Mrs Rooney on October 23, and that no order was made for possession.

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE. • Michael Canice Rooney agreed that e there was an arrangement that what s was inside the sideboard was not to be touched. Neither witness nor his - wife touched what was in the side--3 board, nor did either open the side- ■ board. Witness was given a month’s t notice, and found a house in Black--1 bah a few days before judgment was 3 given against him for rent. The fur- - niture was carted oujt on the Sunday , before judgment was given (on a > Tuesday). Witness had a row with ; Riddiford on the day he was given > notice, because Riddiford wanted to 1 lock the washhouse, and make wit- - ness’s wife put her articles out. Riddiford told witness and his wife they ■ could have the blankets, but said not J to say anything to Maud (his daughter) as “she was after all she could ' get.” Witness identified the wash board as his by a bored hole in it, but could not identify the pot other than that it was one of two purchased by his wife in Oamaru. She was under medical treatment for tuberculosis, and when they shifted to Blackball, there was a water shortage, so the rugs, could not be washed. In addition, his wife was not well. The door of I the sideboard was not locked, and often came open when anyone walked

across the floor. To the Senior Sergeant: The pot (produced) was his. Riddiford’s wash board disappeared while witness was occupying the house. Duggan, a nephew of Riddiford, took a wash board away. His wife bought the pot at Oamaru about two years ago. To the S.M.: The sideboard door started to spring open about four days after witness went into the house. Witness could not account for his wife telling the policeman that she had had the pot (produced) for nine years—since they were married. After hearing the evidence of the ether defendant, Mrs Rooney, and an address by Mr James, the S.M. dismissed the charges, on the grounds that they had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, as required by the law. The circumstances were suspicious.