MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 November 1943, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

1 TO-DAY’S GREYMOUTH CASES. ' Mr. G. G. Chisholm, S.M., presided at a sitting of the Magistrates Court at Greymouth, this morning. Sergeant R. C. Mcßobie represented the police. , . , Robert William Leech was convicted and fined £5, with 12/- costs and 5/6 witness’s expenses, for operating an unlicensed radio set. The Radio Inspector (Mr. A. Sumner) stated that defendant had had the set tor three years and four months when he visited the house on November 10, and the licence fees outstanding amounted to £4/7/6. All trace of the set was lost after it was purchased in 1940 and it was not traced until defendant had the set serviced m August last. Defendant received notice then to take out a licence. Defendant had informed witness that he did not intend to pay the back . fees. | THEFT OF DIAMOND RING. I Shirley Inez Hope, 22, married, of Dobson, pleaded guilty to a charge that on or about September 8, I£4J, at Dobson, she committed the then of a diamond ring, valued at £22/10/-, the property of Sarah Dobbin, and elected to be dealt with summarily. Mr. AV. D. Taylor represented accused. Sergeant Mcßobie stated that accused had been friendly with Mis. Dobbin and visited her house. About September 8 last a diamond long was missed. Six weeks later Mrs. Dobbin's husband saw what he considered to be the missing ring on a finger of accused. At a dance Mis. Dobbin made enquiries about the ring from accused and later made a complaint to the police. When interviewed by Constable McQuarrie, accused admitted having taken the ring. The ring had since been recovered. Nothing was previously known against accused, who had two young children, one aged two years and the other one year.. Mr. Taylor said that accused had succumbed to a sudden temptation . and had taken the ring. There was little he could add to what the Sergeant had said, but he thought it was a case where he could properly asK that probation be extended, to accused He also asked that in view of her age, the fact that she had two young children, and that it was her first offence, her name be suppressed. The Magistrate said it was a particularly mean theft for accused had removed the ring from the home of a nerson she had been m the habit o visiting. He would not order suppression of the name. He thought the familv was too young to be p.ejudiced by publication ci ihe namu. Accused would be admitted to P r bation for 12 months. An order was made for the return of the ring.