MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 April 1943, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

i SITTING AT GRBYMOUTH

A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held at Grey mouth, this mo - ins before Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M. Senior Sergeant G. F. Bonisch represented the police. . Lawrence Harold Muir was convicted and fined 10/- with 10/- costs for operating an unlicensed radio set, on the information of the Radio inspector (Mr A. Sumner). A first-offender found on licensed premises after hours was convicted and fined 5/- with 10/- costs and 7/6 witness’s expenses. Alan McPhee was charged that on December 15, 1943, being a shotfirer in the Dobson colliery he tailed to make an inspection with a locked safety lamp for the presence of inflammable gas in a working after a shot had been fired and find the place safe in all respects. Defendant, who was represented by Mi J. W. Hannan, pleaded guilty. James McArthur (Inspector oi Mines), who laid the information, said that the breach was discovered during an inspection by the workmen’s inspectors and the mine unaeiviewer. While they were inspecting the mine a shot was fired in a place and after the shot-fiver (defendant) had completed his inspection they found some gas in the place. . matter was reported to the Department, and on December 21 an inquiry was held. The shot-firer then stated that in making his inspection after the shot had been fired he found that a portion of the brattice controlling the ventilation in the place had been damaged by the shot. Ho hung his lamp up and proceeded to repair the brattice. That was 10 leet from the coal face and lie inspected the part up. to the face without the lamp. He left the lamp at the point I where he repaired the brattice. I T'o the Magistrate, Mr McArthur 1 said that in effect there was no test for gas in the place beyond the brat I Mr Hannan said that defendant was one of the oldest shot-fireis in the mine and had never given any trouble before. The damaging of the brattice was unusual, and after repairing that he had overlooked, the question of taking’ the lamp right up to the face. n . A To the Magistrate, Mr McArthur said that the repair of the brattice was essential. The Magistrate said that tne circumstances were different from those of some other cases, and while he thought a small fine would meet the case the penalty must not be regarded lightly, as all regulations must be scrupulously observed in the interests of safety. Defendant would be convicted and fined £.5, with 10/- costs. Robert Naisbitt (represented by Mr J. W. Hannan) was charge with disobedience of a maintenance order m respect of his two children, arrears amounting to £l9/10/-, and defendant made application for variation of the order. He stated that he was willing to accept custody of one of the children, custody having been riven to the mother in divorce proceedings at the Supreme Court. It was stated that the mother did not wish to transfer the child to the custody of defendant. On the charge of disobedience of the order defendant was sentenced to one month s imprisonment, to be released on payment of £5, and the warrant to be suspended as long as defendant pays 5/- per week in reduction of the arrears, all of which above £5 were cancelled. The order was varied to 5/- per week for each of the two children. The Magistrate commented that defendant would be better ■ oft financially under the variation than if he took one of the children. Pleas of not guilty were entered in a licensing case, in which the licensee of an hotel was charged, under the Emergency Regulations, with supplying liquor, and two persons were charged with consuming liquor during prohibited hours. Mr J. W. Hannan, for defendants, stated that there would be no dispute regarding the facts of the case. The licensee had invited the two men to have supper with him, and in the course of the supper had supplied them with a drink but at no cost to the two men. Under common law it had been held that a licensee was entitled to entertain guests in that manner, but the Regulations apparently took away that privilege. The question as to whether the licensee retained that privilege under the Regulations was at present before the Court of Appeal and he suggested that the case be adjourned until the decision of the Court of Appeal was announced. If the Court’s decision was that the licensee did not have the privilege under the Regulations he (Mr Hannan) would have to enter pleas of guilty. The Senior Sergeant said that the case before the Court of Appeal was identical with that before the Magistrate, and he agreed to an adjournment. The case was accordingly adjourned for one month.