MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 February 1942, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES. Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M., presided at to-day’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth. Senior-Ser-geant G. F. Bonisch represented the police. On the information of F. E. Lockington, mine manager, A. Davis was charged that, on February 2, at Wallsend, being a person employed in a mine in which safety lamps are required to be used, he did have in his possession a box of lucifer matches. The informant said that the matches were discovered in defendant's coat, during a routine examination in the pit. Defendant said he knew nothing about the matches and did not know how they got into his pocket. He admitted that he had not searched his pockets before entering the mine in the morning. About 70 per.cent, of the men were searched each morning, but defendant was not included among those searched on the day of the offence.

The S.M. said he had had a number of prosecutions for similar offences over the past 12 months. He had been treating the offenders leniently, but it might be that there was carelessness, and he intended to increase the fine. Defendant would be lined £l. with 10/- costs. The informant said the Miners’ Union had passed a resolution that any man found with matches in his pocket should have a week's “holiday.” It was a serious matter. For cycling at night, without a light, each of the. following defendants was fined 10/-, with costs 10/-, except where otherwise indicated: — Christy Douglas (costs .12/); William Griffiths Groom; Henry Daniel Rodgers (costs 11/-); Gordon Ronchi; Henry John Desmond Skates; John Joseph Sheahan; Claud Smith; Gavin Melvin Sullivan; James Sydney Clarence Thomas and Mervyn William Thomas.

Two first offenders found on licensed premises after hours were each fined 5/-, with 10/- costs. Two second offenders were fined 10/-, with 10/- costs, and another second offender who had been recently convicted, was fined 15/-, with 10/costs.

The licensee of the Imperial Hotel, Greymouth, Eugene Thomas Swetnam, was charged with opening the premises for the sale of liquor, exposing liquor for sale and selling liquor after hours on February 2. Kathleen Swetnam was charged that, being a person other than the licensee, she did supply liquor after hours on the same date. Mr J. W. Hannan entered a plea of guilty to the charge of “selling,” and also pleaded guilty on behalf of the female defendant. Senior-Sergeant Bonisch said that at 9.5 p.m. on February 2, Sergeant Mcßobie and Constable Rennie visited the hotel. They were admitted at the front door by the female defendant, and on going into the parlour adjoining the bar, found five men, each with a glass of beer. None bad any excuse to offer. The licensee's wife admitted supplying the liquor, and that she had authority. The licensee, who was temporarily absent, next day admitted his responsibility. It was the first prosecution against the hotel since the present licensee had been in occupation. The licensee was fined £2, with 10/- costs, and the female defendant was fined £l, with 10/- costs. DAMAGE AT REWANUI. Three youths, James Higson, Thomas Menzies, and John Bernard Nailer, were charged, on the information of the mine manager, J. Adamson (Mr F. A. Kitchingham) that, on October 31, 1941, at Rewanui, they did attempt wilfully to damage an elec,ric light globe, valued at 3/-, the

j property of the Crown. ! Mr Kitchingham said the intormaI tions were laid by the manager in . consequence of damage which had I been going on for a considerable time. ! Between the railway station and the i hoist at Rewanui, there were a number of electric lamps, and 30 globes and two holders had been destroyed by stone-throwing. The globes were valued at 3/- each, but that was probably the least serious feature, as it was now so difficult to obtain satisfactory globes. On the day of the information, the mine manager observed the defendants, who had .stayed behind the other miners. When they approached the first lamp, theie was a fusillade of stones. No damage was done, and consequently, the defendants were charged with attempted 1 mischief. The case was brought as a I warning, and since defendants were ! | caught, only one globe had been broken. It was desired to impress on ail and sundry that damage to Crown I property would not be tolerated. All the defendants were losing a day s work, and no penalty was desired In reply to a question by the S.M., Menzies said he iiad broken only one globe, and he did not think his companions had broken many either. The S.M.: But you did your best. I only hope that if there is any more of I this practice you will be caught in the attempt, so you can be made to pay for the damage. You will each be'convicted and discharged, witn the warning that if there is any more oi it you will not be treated so leniently. It is a senseless sort of thing. You are vetting your living out of tne mine, and I can’t see what pleasure you get out of destroying the property. I think you were fortunate to be kept

at the mine. . As an echo oi the special sitting on February 6. four additional employees of the Grey Vaiicy Collieiies, who were not served with summoneses in time for the original hearing were charged with being parties to a strike at the Dobson mine on December 12. Mr W. D. Taylor, for defendants, said that, in view of the S.M.’s previous decision, he would enter pieas of guilty. ... , Each defendant was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within 12 months. I PRICE FIXATION BREACH In the first prosecution of its kind in the Grey district, F. Wise was charged that, on November 4, at Kumara, he did, by his agent, and while a price order remained in force, sell by retail a pair of half-hose at a price :in excess of that fixed by the Price Order, contrary to the Control of I Prices Emergency Regulations, 1939. 'Mr F A. Kitchingham appeared for I the informant, Douglas .William Stonehouse and Mr. W. D. Taylor, for I defendant, entered a formal plea of not guilty, in order to have certain evidence placed before the Court. Mr. Kitchingham said the sale and price of the half-hose were admitted. The facts were that the hose, No. 401. were sold at 3/11 (receipt produced), 1 a price in excess of that fixed by Price Order No. 48, published in the New Zealand Gazette. The maximum penalty fixed by the regulations was a (fine of £lOO.

Mr. Taylor said the position was that the goods were purchased from the Kaiapoi Woollen Company at 25/9 a dozen. When defendant had consulted him (Mr. Taylor) he had searched for price order No. 48, but it was not published in the Statutory Regulations. The Control of Prices Regulations said that notice of every price 'order was to be given by the Tribunal as the circumstances fitted, but he, Mr. Taylor, submitted that every legal office in Greymouth could be searched without finding Price Order No. 48, as apparently the only place where it had been notified was in the Gazette. As far as defendant was con-

cerned. he knew nothing of the older. The price charged by defendant did not represent an extraordinary profit, and he (Mr. Taylor) was bound to make the criticism that notification only in the Gazette was a very unsatisfactory way of acquainting retailers of an order. He submitted that it was a case where there was no attempt to contravert or defy the regulations and asked that, if the S.M. was satisfied that the breach was unintentional, he should suppress defendant’s name, in view of the possibility of harm to his business by the prosecution. Defendant, in evidence, said he knew nothing-bf the existence ol the relative Price Order. There was nothing on the invoice produced to indicate a fixed retail price. He fixed his price, by other retailers’ advertisements, at 3/11. He had written to the Price Tribunal since the prosecution was instituted, asking for a price list but had had no reply. He did not get the Gazette. To the S.M.: The only other experience he had had of fixed price was in the case of women’s hose, when the retail price was noted on the invoice. He had had no warning of a contemplated fixed price for half hose. Sidney Hood, local representative ol the Kaiapoi Woollen Coy., said that he had supplied the goods to defendant but he knew nothing of the existence of the Price Order. Some of the bigger retailers got lists from the Price Tribunal but he did not think the smaller retailers received such lists. The half-hose was often sold at 3/11 and the price did not represent an exorbitant price. To Mr. Kitchingham: The wholesale price 25/9 per dozen, was ex Christchurch warehouse and all charges had to be added on. To the S.M.: No publicity had been

given to the Price Order under discussion. . At this stage, Mr. Taylor amended the plea to one of guilty, and again stressed that defendant acted honestly and the price charged was not exorbitant. , , , The S.M. said he thought it was a case where the penalty should be not more than nominal. He was satisfied that defendant did not know of the price order and there did seem a weakness in the matter of advising I retailers of their duty. The publication in the Gazette, without prior notification that it was contemplated, did not appear to be much notice to people who were not in the habit of getting the Gazette. He (the S.M.) thought that if price fixation was to be effective, some indication should be given, not only to the retailer, but also to the public, so that they would know' their rights and duties. However, he thought a conviction should be entered. In regard to publication of the name, he did not think it would be detrimental to defendant, as the circumstances showed that there was no intention on his part. He would be convicted and ordered to pay Court costs 10/- and solicitor’s fee £l/1/-. He (the S.M.) was satisfied that there was nothing in the evidence to show' that defendant had any intention of disobeying the fixed price, or of making any unusual profit.