MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Grey River Argus, 17 January 1922, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before Mr W. Meldrum, S.M.). AFTER HOURS. Two first offenders for being on licensed premises after hours without lawful excuse, were convicted and ordered to pay costs. A second offender was convicted and fined 20/- and costs. MISSING NUMBER PLATES James D. Wingham was charged with driving a motor car in Mackay Street without having a number plate attached in accordance with the by-laws. Sen.-Sergeant McCarthy stated that defendant, who did not appear, had stated that, owing to an accident to his car, he had occasion to remove his number plate, and was on his way to a motor garage when accosted by the police. He was convicted and ordered to pay costs. Frank Scarlett and John Watson similarly charged, were convicted and ordered to pay costs. FIREWORKS V DISPLA VS, Yip Bor and Wm. Hannam, who did not appear, were convicted and ordered to pay costs for discharging fireworks in a public place on New Year’s Eve.

Sen.-Sergt. McCarthy explained that the prosecutions were part of a Do-minion-wide campaign against the cracker menace. His Worship pointed out that the Statutes were very clear with regard to discharging fireworks. THREATENING BEHAVIOUR AN ORIENTAL ASSAULTED. Herbert Willi, ms and Luey Woo were each charged with threatening behaviour, whereby a breach of the peace was occasioned. Mr W. J. Joyce appeared for Williams and Mr A. 11. Paterson for Woo. Sen.-Sergt. McCarthy stated that Luey Woo, who was a Chinese fruiterer, complained to the police on December 31 that he had been assaulted near the Opera House by the defendant, Williams. The contradictory accounts < the occurrence that had been forthcoming induced him to proceed against both men. John Nelson, an apprentice, stated that he was at Benyon’s corner on New Year’s Eve. lie saw Herbert Williams and Luey Woo near Benyon’s corner and they werq then having a scuffle. It looked to be a fight between the two. Witness separated the combatants, putting the Chinaman into his shop. Williams then walked away. Neither man had his coat off. To Mr Paterson: Witness was not

present when the fight started. Woo had a bleeding nose when he came, but Williams was marked too. There were four mates of Williams present. Witness saw no money on the ground. The Chinaman had asked now the other fellow was after the pair were separated. To the Bench: Both men were standing up to it. Herbert Williams, giving evidence on his own behalf, stated that he was a Government servant. On New Year’s Eve he went into Benyon’s shop. From there he went over towards Pollards. His mates accompanied him. Returning to the corner nearest Chapel Street he met the Chinaman. One of the young fellows said “Hullo, Luey.’’ The Celestial ran up to a boy who was in the street and shaped up to him. Witness intervened and the Chinaman called him a white . A fight then started between witness and Woo. After both had been struck they were separated by Williams’s companions.

To Mr Paterson: Witness was not in Luey Woo’s shop previously that evening. He had not asked the Chinaman to shout drinks. He was not aware that crackers had been thrown into Woo’s shop. lie did ,not know that Woo had spoken quietly to the boy, and said he would have to inform the police if the boy did not leave his shutters alone. He had not told the Chinaman he was too yellow and to leave the boy alone. He did not know that Chinamen were the most peaceful in the community, nor had he seen any money about on the ground during or after the fight. There was no need for witness to see a doctor about his injuries. Witness had not battered the Chinaman and did not consider the latter would have to consult a doctor. Frank Moore, clerk in the Railway, stated that he had been with Williams on New Year’s Eve. He had seen the Chinaman shaping up to a boy, but had thought he was fooling, so took no notice. He heard Williams tell the Chinaman to leave the boy alone. Williams smacked Woo when the latter applied an epithet to him. They both started in then and Nelson finally parted them. To Mr Paterson: The injuries to Wil-

liams’s hand might have been caused by the blows he struck the Chinaman. Witness was able to understand Woo’s speech, and saw him nearly every day. He had nothing against Woo and had not seen him after the fight. To Mr Joyce: A bleeding nose made rather an effective show. Jack McDonald, mill worker, Te Kinga, stated that he was with Williams on New Year’s Eve. He saw the Chinaman molesting a boy. Williams and Woo had fought after the latter had insulted Williams. Witness had helped to separate the combatants. He had looked after Williams, whom he had met only once before. To Mr Paterson: lie had been a little way off when the Chinaman had used the bad language. Woo could quite well be understood in his pronunciation of English. Counsel for Luey Woo (Mr Paterson) stated that on New Year's Eve boys had been annoying Woo. When Luey

Woo had met Williams lie had been on •the way to his brother, lie had then seen the boy who had annoyed him and spoke to him, when Williams interfered. The Chinaman had lost £3 in money during the brawl. Luey Woo, who was sworn in the European fashion, described the annoyance he had been subjected to by the boy he had accosted in the street. Williams had asked witness to shout him a drink, but witness had said he was too busy. Williams then called him “too yellow.’’ When witness met the boy in the street he warned him not to come into his shop again. Williams then came up and when told to mind his own business, said “You’re too yellow.’’ After further altercation Williams struck him. Witness did not know anything about boxing so pushed Williams off. Witness had about £24 in his pockets and lost £3 of it, when he took his hand out of his pocket to defend himself. Witness had not used any bad language. To Mr Joyce: He had not chased boys allout the town nor had he the habit of butting in when other people were conversing. Witness had 24 notes in his pocket when the fight started. They were not in a roll, but some were in each of three pockets. When witness saw the police- lie had not told them he •lid not know the man who had fought him. He said he knew his face, but not his name. Dr. J. W. Mcßrearty, medical practitioner, stated that ho examined Luey Woo on January 2. He then had two black eyes, and both lips swollen, the upper one abraised. It must have taken pretty forcible blows to do this. There must have been approximately three blows struck. Tie had always found Woo honest and inoffensive. To Mr Joyce: He betrayed signs of having had a fight. The ordinary European would not have consulted a doctor, except for legal purposes. Constable Anderson stated that Luey Woo complained to him that he had been assaulted by some person he knew well by sight, who tried to get some money from him. The Chinaman was then badly knocked about. His Worship stated that the aggressor had been Williams, lie had had no right to intervene with his fists. The medical evidence showed that he had used great force. Williams was convicted and fined £1 and costs. The Bench remarked that there was nothing to show Williams had seen any money that may have been dropped.

THE PERTH WRECK. DAMAGE TO A DERRICK Arthur Raymond Curtis was charged with wilfully damaging a derrick, the property of J. S. Robertson, to the extent of £5. Sen.-Sergt. McCarthy stafed that the information arose out of the timber on the wrecked vessel, the Perth. A man had been fined previously for removing timber from the Cobden beach. A derrick was washed ashore. It was very valuable because of the fittings on it. The derrick had been sawn off at the end some time about December 2.).

Witness personally had warned defendant against interference with the | wreckage as had the agents of the vessel. Defendant elected to be dealt with summarily and pleaded not guilty. John S. Robertson stated that he , was at present owner of the Perth. He had sole control of the vessel since she was wrecked. No persons had been given permission to remove anything, except the three men who were salvaging the vessel. Witness knew the derrick, and, although a little damaged, it was fit for use when it was washed ashore. A new derrick was worth £45. The length was what made it so valuable. He saw the derrick on the rocks and later noticed that a length of it had been sawn off. Later witness spoke to Curtis on the beach, and the latter admitted damaging the derrick. He told Curtis he was tired of warning him and intended to prosecute him. Curtis said he did not think it was of any value. Witness had not seen the piece that was cut off. In response to defendant, witness stated that it was immaterial that he was only agent until December 14. The qien he employed were supposed to report to him as to their progress at their work. Defendant had been ordered off the Perth on Christmas Day. Three others were also aboard that day. Witness had not measured the derrick before it was damaged. The derrick had been splintered at the bottom end, the opposite end to where the piece had been sawn off. To Sen.-Sergt. McCarthy: On the 14th of December the derrick had not been damaged at the top. The piece must have been sawn off about December 25th.

Arthur Hutchings stated that he was looking after thd Perth for the owner. He had often seen Mr Curtis near the wreck, and had warned him against removing timber. Witness had seen the derrick before Christmas and it then had a piece sawn off. He had seeen Curtis on the ship on Christinas Day. He and the others had swum out by the aid of the mast which had fallen over the*side. Witness ordered Curtis off the ship. He had had occasion to warn him against removing timber. Witness had heard defendant admit to Mr Robertson that he had sawn the derrick. To defendant: He did not know that, various people had removed timber from the deck, but he knew that Mr Robertson had gone round assessing the value of timber in people’s yards. Witness had not heard Curtis have a controversy with Robertson as to how much of the derrick was cut. Anthony Henry Caughley, employed as watchman on the Perth, stated that

he saw the derrick on the rocks. It I was then undamaged. He saw it sub- j sequently, when it had a piece sawn off. < Witness had warned Curtis at least | once to leave the timber alone. Subsequently defendant had shown witness the three feet from the end of the derrick. On this occasion he had seen 1 Curtis cutting up a piece of Baltic pine. I The derrick had been spoilt and no- ; body benefitted. Ivan Curtis stated that he remem- i bered December sth. He had accompanied his brother to the beach to get some firewood. He had seen the derrick and it had had the end cut off it. He would not care to say who had cut it. Later witness admitted cutting it off. To Sen.-Sergt McCarthy: He could not remember who carried the tools to the beach. The derrick had been damaged before he touched it. He did not know that the value of ■ the Baltic Pine plank was £2 or £3. Witness had been warned once by the I watchman on the Perth at 2 o’clock in | the morning and also that a man had I been fined for taking timber from the | beach. To defendant: He was under the impression that the wood thajb had been taken was good only for He knew that the owners of the had allowed Cobden people to cart timber into their back yards and had then come along and assessed its value. Later they had charged for it. Defendant (on oath) detailed how he and his brother had gone to the beach for firewood. The piece of the derrick his brother had cut off was of no use for anything but firewood. Caughley had admitted that sonic people had removed timber unmolested. To Sen.-Sergt. McCarthy: He was certain his brother was with him when he went to the beach on December sth. Witness remember being warned twice by the Sergeant. He had told the Sergeant he had tendered for stacking the timber that was washed up. The Bench, in giving his decision, stated that there appeared to be sonic conflict as to the date of the offence. However, the exact date was immaterial. The prosecution had shown that he had been implicated in the offence. The fact that his brother admitted the actual damage did not absolve the defendant. This case could not be treated as a single case as he had be'en warned to leave the timber alone. He was liable to a fine of £5O for being on the boat. For the offence defendant was liable to imprisonment for one year. He would be fined £lO in addition to the amount of the damage, in default. 28 days’ imprisonment. He was allowed four weeks to pay. ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. Nicholas Petersen, of Blackball, who

appeared with his arm in a sling, was charged witli attempted suicide on December 15, by cutting an artery in his left arm. lie pleaded guilty. Sen.-Sergt. McCarthy stated that the act had been committed in a fit of despondency. lie was a married man, a miner, and had I con in the hospital a month. The man was liable to drink, but protested against being pro hibitod. Questioned by the Bench, defendant stated that he had been in the Dominion 20 years and could not give a satisfactory explanation of his action. He was a German and had been naturalised once. Defendant was convicted and order ed to come up for sentence when eallet , upon.