MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 July 1938, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTFI CASES Mr. Raymond Ferner, S.M., 'presided 1 over -to-day’s■ siting of the Magistrate’s' Cotirt at Greymouth. Senior-' Sergeant E. Quayle represented the police. . . , Appearing on remand from Christchurch, Harold Joseph Tobin was charged that, On Muy‘27, 1988, at Greymouth, he ditl> steal a fcord V 8 motorcar, valued at £175, the property of William John Coppersmith. On the application of Detective' Sergeant H. E. Knight, accused was remanded until next Monday, owing to the absence of the principal witness for the prosecution. Fourteen 'statutory first offenders, caught on licensed premises during prohibited hours, were each fined 5/-, with 10/- costs. For failing to carry a. warrant ol fitness in his car, Albert Victor Oliver was fined 10/-, with 10/- costs. John Vincent Patterson was charged with procuring a .303 rifle Without a permit, at Otira on May 8. Defendant pleaded guilty. The Senior-Sergeant said 1 that the owner of the 'Pifle went to Australia with the R.S.A. contingent, and left the rifle in charge of another man at Otira. Defendant asked this man for a loan of Ihe rifle', and went out shooting. As ho did not return, a . search party was 1 sent out. After being lost in the bush, defendant, returned, in a pretty bad way. He could have been charged with carrying a rifle in the Arthur’s Pass National Park, but, as lie nearly lost his life, he was only charged with obtaining possesion of the. rifle without a permit. Defendant said- he was not aware that it was 1 an offence to carry ft rifle in the National Park. He spent the. whole of one night in the bush. The S.M. imposed a fine of .10/-, with 10/- costs.

RAIL-CAR COLLISION John Herbert Williamson was 1 charged with driving a motor-truck over the Arahura. bridge railway crossing. when the line was not clear, on May 20. Mr. W. Douglas Taylor appeared for defendant, and pleaded guilty. The Senior-Sergeant, said that, at 4.45 p.m.. the rail-car collided with the truck. Defendant was driving along the Arahura. Valley Road', which, for a short distance, ran parallel with the railway line. Defendant drove on to the line, and the rail-car collided With the tail of the truck. The statement. made by the driver of the; railcar was almost in favour of defendant. He said that the rail-car collided with the stationary truck, at a low speed. Visibility wa's clear, and he had a view of the line for about a mile. He was positive that there was no vehicle on the Arahura Valley Road, but a slight dip in the road, with a little scrub at. the side, deceived him. The truck came on to the line. The brakes of the 1 rail-car were applied. but. it was unable to 'stop clear of the obstruction. The rail-car lloU-n was sounded twice when approaching the bridge, as a precaution. The 'circumstances did not suggest.danger. Tn his explanation, defendant said he was quite satisfied there was nothing on the railway line. He said that, he could not have seen the rail-car. even if he had got out to have a look. Apparently, some scrub along the side of the road prevented him from seeing the rail-car coming from Hokitika. Mr .Taylor said that it was a very slight, mishap. According to the defendant, he drove on to the line, and stopped. Hi's 1 attention was 1 directed mainly to traffic coming along the road from Hokitika, and from the opposite' direction. The structure of the bridge affected visibility. If defendant had gone on across the bridge, there would have been 'no accident, hut he was exercising extreme caution, and stopped. There was no sugge'stipn whatever that there was any reckless or careless driving. Defendant had driven 90,000 miles, and this was his first mishap. That was not quite corr'ect, is'aid the Senior-Sergeant. On November 1, last year, defendant wa's fined 10/- for a similar offence at the Herbert. Street crossing, Greymouth. Mr. Taylor said there was no accident, on that occasion. The S.M. ordered defendant to pay 10/- costs. “I am Concerned with the dangerous situation that does obtain at the' Arahura bridge,” he added. ”1 do not know what volume is now being emitted py the rail-car horn. The Railways’ Department says it has been improved, but I have had no opportunity of judging that. I do not kn’oiw what can be done' to remedy the situation at .the bridge. It is a matter, perhips, that may be looked into by the local Automobile Association, to see whether any sensible recommendation can be made. In my view, the 'situation at the bridge is definitely dangerous.

CHARGES WITHDRAWN On the information' of Mr. A. J. Fairmaid (Borough Surveyor), the Williamson Construction' Co., Ltd., was 1 charged thab, on May 31, they executed additions to the Nurses’ Home, at Greymouth, without giving to the Borough Council the’ notice provided for in Clause 344 of the Consolidated ByLaws', 1903, and the surveyor for the Council not having certified in writing that the plan's and specifications were in accordance with the by-laws’. Defendants were also charged with continuing to erect a maternity ward' at the Grey Hospital, the necessary notice not being given, and the plans 1 and specifications’ not having been certified. Mr. C. R. McGinley, for the informant, asked for leave to withdraw the charges. , For the defendant, Mr. W. Douglas Taylor said that! they had taken legal advice a lit tle too late. Th'ey had the contra’ct for the construction of addition's at the hospital. Th'ey were under the wrong impression that, as the Job was being done for w public body, there was no obligation to take out a building permit. Th'ey per'sis'ted in t hat attitude 1 , and maintained that was the position under the by-laws, until proceedings' were issued. Then they took legal advice, but it was too late. The permit fee had now been paid, and the legal fees met. The S.M. granted leave to withdraw.