MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 July 1939, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES Mr. Rayihond Ferner, S.M., presided at a sitting- of the Greymouth Magistrate’s Court, to-day. Vernon Ronald Williams was fined 10/-, with costs, for failing to have a warrant of fitness for a motor-cycle. A line of 20/-, with costs, was imposed on Thomas A. Arnott, for driving a motor-car without being (he holder of a driver’s license. James Irwin Barrow was fined 10/-, with costs, for driving a motor-lorry by night without a tail-light. Robert. Henry Coom (Mr. A. H. Paterson) pleaded guilty to a charge that, on June 9, 1939, on the ReeftonGreymouth main highway, he drove a-motor-car negligently. An alternative charge, that he drove in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, was dangerous to the public, was withdrawn by leave of the Court.

Senior-Sergeant G. F. Bonish said that, at 6 p.m., a bus stopped on the Dobson "straight” to set down a passenger. Defendant’s lorry collided with the rear of the bus, while it was stationary. After the collision, the lorry went on without stopping, but the bus driver secured the number. The left-hand mudguard of the lorry and the left-hand headlight were found to be damaged, but defendant said that this damage was done when he collided with a concrete wall before he hit the bus.

Mr. Paterson said that defendant had not. been in any trouble before with regard to motoring offences. On the day of the accident he had an attack of influenza coming on, and was hurrying to get home. The collision w'ith the bus was not serious. In fact, defendant did not know he had hit the bus.

A fine of £3, with costs, was imposed. Alexander Clelland Jamieson, pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a motor-ca? without due care and attention on the • Greymouth-Reefton main hightvay on June 3.

Senior-Sergeant Bonish said that this offence also took place on the Dobson "straight.” Defendant had just overtaken and passed another car, and', then, in order to avoid some women who were walking on the road, ,he pulled sharply -over to his left, with the result that there was a collision between his car and the one he had just passed. No one was injured and onty slight damage was done. There was no question of speeding. . j Defendant said he had committed *an error of judgment. He thought lie had plenty of room to get in front of the other car.

A fine of 20/-, with costs, was ■ imposed. / There was no appearance of Richard Surton Raiigi, charged with disobedience of maintenance orders made in respect of his wife and one child. The orders required him to pay 25/a week for the support of his wife, and 11'/- for the child. It was stated that the total arrears were £l4. On each of the. ttvo informations, defendant was convicted and sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment, the warrants to be suspended so long as he keeps up current maintenance and pays 20/a week off the arrears. “A SERIOUS OFFENCE.” “This is indeed a serious offence,” said the S.M., in inflicting a-fine of £3 with costs on a miner, Thomas Brown, who did not appear to answer a charge of wilful damage to a safety lamp. The charge against Brown was that on June 22, he did wilfully damage a safety lamp provided in a coal mine, in which safety lamps are required by the Coal Mines Act, 1925, to be used, namely, the mine of the Grey Valley Collieries, Ltd., at Dobson. Mr. C. R. McGinley appeared for the owners of the mine, who had laid the information. Mr. McGinley said that defendant was issued with a safety lamp on June 22. When the lamp w r as returned it was found to be damaged. Brown had actually been seen tampering with the lamp. The Coal Mines Act provided that, if a safety lamp was damaged, the person to whom it had been issued was to be held to have damaged it wilfully, unless he could prove that the damage was due to no fault of his own.

George Eder, lampman employed by the Grey Valley Collieries, gave evidence of the issue of the lamp to defendant, and details of its damaged condition on return. Mr. McGinley said he would ask the Court to treat the offence as serious, as the safety of over 100 men had been endangered by defendant’s foolish action.

The S.M.: Do you suggest that the lamp was wilfully damaged?

Mr. McGinley said that that was the suggestion, though he had not thought it necessary to call evidence to prove the fact.

The S.M.: The offence is indeed serious, and the Act provides for :■ penalty of up to £5O. Defendant might have imperilled the safety oi the other,men in the mine. I do not remember having dealt With a simi lar case.

Mr. McGinley; To my knowledge a similar information has not been laid before.'

A fine of £3, with costs was im posed.