MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 December 1945, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

. SITTING AT GREYMOUTH. Mainly cases, dealing with traffic offences and breaches of the Licensing Act came before the Magistrate, Mr. A. A. McLachlan, S.M., this morning, when a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held at Greymouth. Senior-Sergeant G. H. L. Holt prosecuted. Roland Albert Bullivant, who made a voluntary appearance, pleaded guilty to a charge that on November 25, he did sell liquor at the Duke of Edinburgh Hotel during the hours when the hotel was required by the Emergency Regulations to be closed. Other charges were withdrawn. Senior-Sergeant Holt said that he and Constable J. P. Molloy had visited the hotel at 8.45 p.m. on Sunday, November 25, and _ found five men in the bar consuming liquor. Defendant was the new proprietor of the hotel and had only been in the premises for about two weeks. Defendant had no explanation to make. “You are taking liberties with the law very early in your career, aren’t you?” said the S.M. “Yes, it is rather early,” said defendant. _ Inflicting a fine of £lO with 10/costs, the S.M. said that defendant was fortunate to be getting off with a minimum fine. If he came before the Court again he could not always get the minimum. Five men who did not appear to answer charges of consuming liquor at the Duke of Edinburgh after hours were convicted and fined £2, with 10/- costs. TRAFFIC OFFENDERS. Alexander Bromley appeared and pleaded guilty to charges of, on November 22, at Greymouth, driving a motor-cycle after dark without a headlight, without a tail-lamp and without a warrant of fitness. Defendant said the motor-cycle was his father’s, but he had had his permission to use it. “ He ought to be made to pay a double fine for letting you use it,” commented the S.M., and inflicted a fine of £1 with 10/- costs on each of the three charges. Reginald Allan Williams pleaded guilty to charges of riding a motorcycle and not being the holder of a driver’s license, driving a- motorcycle at night not equipped with a warrant of fitness, a tail-lamp or a head light. The Senior-Sergeant said that there was a warrant of fitness of the cycle for daylight use only. “Perhaps it is a bit tough to charge him with no warrant of fitness and no tail lamp either,” said the S.M., who convicted defendant and fined him £1 with 10/- costs ’on the first charge, 10/- with 10/- costs on the next two charges, and convicted and discharged him on the fourth. Phillip Henham was charged with driving on October 14 a Ford motorvehicle not issued with a license, on September 17 driving without a driver’s license, with no warrant of fitness and without a heavy traffic license. J. A. Ramsay, Transport Department, said he had given defendant every opportunity to have his vehicle repaired, but he had not done so. It was in a very dilapidated condition. Defendant was convicted and fined 10/- with To/- costs on each of the five charges. SALES TAX NOT PAID. On the information of the Collector, of Sales Tax, H. V. Foster (Mr. F. A. Kitchingham) Carl Gustav Adolph Uddstrom was charged that on July 31, 1944, and on divers other dates between then and August 31, 1945, at Cobden, being a wholesaler and not being licensed under the Sales Tax Act as a wholesaler, did sell taxable goods, furniture, of a total sale value of £742/18/6 to other persons. Mr. W. D. Taylor appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty. Mr. Kitchingham said that during the war, defendant had been employed in the State mines and during his employment there had manufactured children’s rocking chairs, fulfilling a contract to supply 2600. The tax that would have to be paid now amounted to £lO2. The minimum fine vzas £25. Mr. Taylor said that defendant had been in the furniture business for some time and had spent two and a half years in. the Army, being released to take up employment in the mines. He had worked the factory at nights and during week-ends in order to rehabilitate himself. He was entitled to a gross turnover not over £5OO to carry on without a license as long as he got an exemption. Defendant had made no charge on the goods for sales tax and the proceedings had- been engendered by complaints of competitors. He was married with one child. Mr. Kitchingham said that the Department was bound to recover the tax, but not necessarily a triple tax. As far as he knew the charges had not been made as a result of complaints by competitors. “It is not often that one experiences great industrial effort in the country to-day, but, unfortunately, this man has not complied with the law and must, be fined,” said the Magistrate. Defendant was convicted and fined £25 with 10/- costs and solicitor’s fee £2/2/-. The District Building Controller, B. Riley, proceeded against W. Neighbours, of Waimangaroa (Mr. M. B. Scully) who vzas charged with using galvanised iron sheets in the construction of a house without consent, this being contrary to the Supply and Building Emergency Regulations. A plea of guilty was entered, and the Magistrate, commenting that under the circumstances the breach was not serious, inflicted a fine of £2, with 10/- costs and £2/2/- solicitor’s fee. SALE OF CAR. In a civil sitting of the Court, Roderick James Mathieson, contractor, of Runanga (Mr. AV. D. Taylor) claimed from Thomas B. Baty, Ltd., motor dealer, Grevmouth (Mr. M. B. Scully) £l7O, alleging a breach of warranty in connection with the purchase of a Dodge motor-car in October, ’ 1945, which plaintiff had agreed to purchase from defendant at -a price of £325, plus interest £75. It was alleged for plaintiff that the car was not a 1934 model as warranted, but a 1930-31 model and that plaintiff had suffered loss and damage and that defendant had charged interest on an amount in excess of plaintiff’s true equity in the car.

Hugh W. Brown, garage manager, gave evidence for plaintiff,, stating that the 1944 value of the car was £lBO. Car prices, he admitted, had been governed by the demand in recent times, but he considered the value of £325 placed on the car' far too high. It was stated that now an insurance cover could not be obtained for the car because of the model of the vehicle. . ■

The defence denied that at any time it was represented to plaintiff that the car was a 1934 model, Thomas B. Baty, in evidence, said he had purchased the car in Christchurch tor £325. It vzas sold for £350 in 1943 and repossessed in 1944, when £369/4/9 ‘was owing on it The car was bought new by him in 1933 and was in perfect condition when sold to plaintiff. It had done 26,000 miles. He was prepared to offer plaintiff .£3OO for it, provided it was placed in the same condition as when it was sold. Witness could not explain why it was represented on the insurance policy that it was a 1934 model. The Magistrate said that it had been shown that the car was a 1930-31 model, but as the car had not been used prior to t 1933 he thought a fair allowance would be £5O, with a corresponding adjustment of the interest, and he entered judgment accordingly. He added that there was no suggestion of anything shady or fraudulent about the deal, and he thought it a pity that the case had not been settled out of court,