MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 July 1945, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

IMPRISONMENT FOR THEFT. Walter Henry Mulroy, who pleaded guilty in the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, this morning to the theft on May 31 at'Greymouth, of four gallons of petrol valued at 12/- the pro,perty of Loyala Arthur Pritcnard Hales, was convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labour by Mr. A. A. McLachlan, S.M. Detective Sergeant C. H. Davis said that Mulroy, was single and aged 41 years and on the date of the offence .was residing with and working for complainant. There was a shed at the rear of the house and in this shed complainant stored tyres, petrol etc., and garaged his motor venicles. Defendant arrived home about 1 a.m., and decided to steal some petrol, which he pumped from a 44-gallon drum into a tin. He foolishly lit a match to see how much was in the tin with the result that £485 worth of uninsured property was destroyed. Defendant’s previous list of convictions was handed to the Court. Mr. C. R. McGinley, for defendant, made a plea for leniency stating that as a result of his foolisn act, which was due to liquor, defendant was still an outpatient of the hospital and there was a civil claim against him for £3OO for the loss of the garage and equipment, while another for a car was possible. He suggested that defendant be allowed to make an effort to pay off the debt. Defendant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. John Waterson Henderson and Alan Joseph Fitzgerald, who pleaded guilty, were each convicted and fined 5/- with 10/- costs for riding unlighted cycles. John Joseph Anisy. Allan Erskine, John Graham, and Arthur Thomas Foster, who did not appear to answer similar charges, were each convicted and fined 10/with 10/- costs. s

LICENSING CASES Two statutory first offenders charged under the Licensing Act Emergency Regulations with consuming liquor on the premises of Revington’s Hotel, Greymouth, during prohibited hours on July 9, were each convicted and fined £2 with 10/- costs. John Frank Morris, for whom Mr. J. W. Hannan pleaded guilty, was charged under the Licensing Act Emergency Regulations with supplying liquor to unauthorised persons on the premises of Revington’s Hotel on July 9. Allan Marshall, licensee of the hotel, was charged under the Licensing Act with opening the premises for the sale of liquor on July 9. Mr. Hannan for defendant pleaded’guilty, and charges of selling and exposing for sale were withdrawn by the police. Senior Sergeant G. H. L. Holt said that on July 9, at 7.40 p.m.,.Sergeant Mcßobie and Constable Beardsley visited the hotel and found three men drinking in the bar. The defendant, Morris, was in the bar and admitted supplying liquor to the three men. Eovington s was a first class hotel, ana was run in an excellent manner usually Morris was convicted and fined £ 10 with 10/- costs and Marshall was convicted and fined £1 with 10/- costs. FORESTRY CHARGES. On the information of the Conservator of Forests, represented by Mr. F. A. Kitchingham, Ogilvie and Co. were charged under the Forest (Fire Prevention) Regulations, 1940, with operating a locomotive without an efficient spark arrestor, and also with failing to fight a forest fire to the utmost of their ability on February 10, 1945. Mr. J. W. Hannan, for defendants, pleaded guilty. ■ Mr. Kitchingham said that in'the present case the tramline ran through an area which had been cut out years ago and the fire occurred in bracken and rata, and the damage from the forest point of view was not capable of estimation in money value. The cases were brought as a warning to sawmillers that they must comply with the regulations. It appeared that the fire was discovered on a Saturday afternoon at 2.30 o’clock and the men in the bush fought the fire until about -1 p.m., when they went home leaving the tire io itself, with the result that it spread over about 32 acres. The firm had endeavoured to Hie best of its ability to prevent tires. There were expenses amounting to £5/7/7 in connection with the investigation. Mr. Hannan said that the country being worked was very hilly and many efforts had been made by the company to use a spark arrestor without impairing the efficiency of the locomotive, but it had been found impossible because of the grades to haul loads with a spark arrestor fitted. Every effort had been made to discover an efficient spark arrestor, but he understood that the Railways Department had also not been able to evolve an efficient spark arrestor without seriously impairing the efficiency of the locomotive. As far as the fighting of the fire was concerned the men had done their best until they realised that they could not do any more good. On the first charge defendants were convicted and fined £2 with costs 12/-, solicitor’s fee £2/2/- and expenses £5/7/7, and on the second charge they were convicted and ordered to pay 10/- costs and 10/6 solicitor’s fee.

THEFT CHARGE DISMISSED. Olive Jenkins (Mr. C. R. McGinley) pleaded not guilty to a charge that at Greymouth on or about May 31, 1945, she did steal one bicycle valued at £4, the property of Alice Elizabeth Veevers. Defendant elected to be dealt with summarily. j Mrs. Veevers gave evidence that she left the cycle with defendant while she was in Christchurch and that when she returned and asked for the cycle defendant said it had been stolen. Witness boarded with defendant for some time but did not owe her any money. She gave Mrs. Jenkins no authority to sell the cycle. The cycle (produced) was her property. Detective Sergeant C. H. Davis gave evidence that he interviewed defendant at her home on June 18. In the course of a statement, defendant said Mrs. Veevers, her child, and a man named Jamieson boarded with her for about three months from May, 1944. The arrangement with Mrs. Veevers was that she and the child -would be kept without charge other than that Mrs. Veevers pay for the meat. Jamieson was to pay £2 a week. She considered that Mrs. Veevers owed her £24, the amount which she (Mrs. Veevers) had received from Jamieson as board. Mrs. Veevers had left the cycle with her and she sold it for £4 but of that sum only 10/- had been paid. When Mrs. Veevers asked her about the cycle she told her it had been stolen.

Defendant, in evidence, detailed the arrangements made with Mrs. Veevers regarding board for herself, the /child and Jamieson. Witness paid all | the household expenses ? except the •meat but Mrs. Veevers did not give her any of the money from Jamieson. ; When asked about it Mrs. Veevers ' said she had spent it. The arrangement 1 was that Jamieson was to pay Mrs. . Veevers, who was to pay witness. She considered she had a right to sell the cycle for the money Mrs. Veevers owed her.

The Magistrate dismissed the charge under the Offenders’ Probation Act. Raymond Richard Frederick Slater Poschich (Mr. W. D. Taylor) applied for a variation of a maintenance order made for 15/- a week for his wife and | 15/- a week for each of two children.! Poschich gave evidence that he was divorced from his wife on April 23, • 1945, and he understood that his wife

had since re-married. The order was varied and reduced to £ 1/10/- a week n'favour of the wile for the main.enance of the two children.