MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 11 December 1928, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

YESTERDAY’S SITTING. The Greymouth Magistrate’s Court presided ovbr by Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., was occupied yesterday in hearing a lengthy list, of police cases, the greater number being against offenderfound on unlicensed premises after hours. Senior-Sergeant Roach represented the Po’ice. BY-LAW CASES. For driving a motor car without proper lights after sunset on October 27, Charles Bryan was fined 5/-, with Caught driving motor vehicles without reflectors, Harry Hahn, William Hannam, and George Hill were each fined 5/-, with costs. Harold Holmes was fined 5/- with , costs, for riding an unlighted eyelet'! er sunset. William McMinn was convicted without penally on two charges of riding a bicycle on Ike footpath, and riding nn unlighteii bicycle after sunset. The pol’ce explained thatf his people were in j oor ci’-ci’ii stances. For driving a motor Lrry along McGowan Street, Runanga, at a speed exceeding ten miles per hour, William Thomas Ogilvie, junior, was fined £l, with 12/- costs.

Walter Grey Scott, ironmonger, was charged with working on Sunday, November 25, assisted by two of his employees, in Hie opening of cases or crockery in Marion Street, at the rear of his premires. Senior-Sergeant Roach laid the information and charged Scott with working on a Sunday in view of a public place. Air W. J. Joyce appeared for defendant, and entered a plea of guiltv. explaining that Scott was shifting crockery from the rear of his premise? to the front. The work was urgent. Marion Street was a back street, and was hardly ever used by traffic. The S.M. imposed a fine of 5/-, with costs. THROUGH PRISON EARS. AIcDERMOTT AND UTS PARCEL. Appearing on remand from last Friday, John McDermott, alias Patrick McDermott, was charged: (1) With being a rogue within the meaning of the Police Offences Act, 1927, i:i that he was found by night without lawful excuse on the enclosed premises of the GreynioutU Gaol; and (2) that, in breach of the Prisons Act, 1925, and tbe regulations thereunder, he did attempt to deliver to a prisoner in the Greymouth Prison. Joshua Thomas Carson, a parcel of food. Sergeant Smythe stated that ar about 11.30 p.m. on Thursday last he heard a noise in the gaol yard ami thereupon investigated, Tie noticed a man running away, and gave chase, overhauling him at Grcsson Street Accused had a bottle of beer with him, and a parcel of food was later found between the bars of a cell window. He charged McDermott and placed him in custody. Constable Hendrickson corroborated the evidence of the Sergeant, and stated that he saw McDermott leaving the gaol yard, and had no doubt as to his identity. Gaoler W. Ayling gave evidence ot someone having endeavoured to push a parcel of food through the window of a cell occupied by a prisoner named Carson. McDermott, in evidence, stated t ( hat he considered there must have been a mistake of identity. He had a few drinks o?i the night in question, but could not remember bringing food into the gaol yard and purring it through the bars. He received quite a surprise when going along the road he heard a bustle, and was arrested by Sergeant. Smythe. ITc may have ippeared sober at the time, but wasreally “dopey” from the effects of drinking. The Senior-Sergeant stated that McDermott had been only six weeks in the country, having arrived from Australia. The S.AT. remarked that although only a short time in the country, McDermott had been twice previously before the Court, ami this was his third appearance. He may have been moved cvby a friendly influence to help his friend in gaol, and probably was, but he had committed an offence under the Legislature, which could not be passed aver lightly. Tn reply to a question, McDermott stated he intended to go back to sea again. His papers were in good order. Perusing the papers, the Magistrate said they were in good order as regards McDermott’s character and conduct, but his sobriety report, was indifferent. ITc did not intend to commit him to gaol, but would convict him, and order him to come up for ! sentence if called upon within six months. “The sooner you get to work, and keep yourself out of mis- 4 chief, the better for you,” concluded His Worship. MISTAKEN IDENTITY?

William McNeil an elderly man, was charged with being on licensed premises after statutory hours. He plead ed not guilty, and was represented by Mr W. J. Joyce.

Senior Sergeant (Roach stated that at- about 12.15 p.m. on Sunday, 11th November, he noticed AlcNeil leaving the Dominion Hotel by the front door. Defendant looked towards witness and on seeing him, turned up Alackay Street towards the railway station. AlcNeil proceeded along Werita Street to Mawhera Quay, and stood at Kettle’s corner. Immediately ho noticed witness following he moved off again, and as witness did not want to be chasing him all day. he allowed him to go. On the following Wednesday he met McNeil and told him he had seen him coming out of the Dominion Hotel on the Sunday, and asked what business he had there. Defendant denied hav ing been there. To Mr Joyce: Witness was coming up Mackay Street and was near the Empire Hotel corner when defendant came out of the Dominion. Defendant in evidence, stated that a mistake must have been made by the S'-nior Sergeant ns he wai not in lh<- Dominion Hotel on the day in question. He suggested that perhaps another man had been taken to be I witness. Hl' hnd not been approached

by the Senior Sergeant on the Wednesday or at any other time. The first information he* had of the affair was when he had been served with the summons by a constable. “I’ll pick him out,’’ said McNeil, and straightaway turned to identify the constable, who served him with the summons, from among the policcment present. “It was this young gentleman here,’’ he said, pointing to Constable Patterson; “they must have taken me for somebody < Ise, there are so many men alike sometimes. ’ ’

The ATagistratc. after asking defendant for any other reason he might be able to advance as to why the Senior Sergeant should declare he was the man in question, convicted him and ordered him to pay costs. BREACH OF HEALTH ACT. Reginald Afoflit of Blackball, was charged with a broach of the Health Act, 1920, in that of his own know ledge he was suffering from an infectious disease, and did wilfully appear in a public place without taking precautions against the spread of infection.

Senior Sergeant Roache stated that defendant had been an inmate of the isolation ward at the Grey mouth Hospi tai, as a diphtheria patient. He had left the institution without permission, and had come to town. He had gone to the police station and asked for permission to .go back to Blackball. He was told permission could not be given and a taxi was obtained to return him to the hospital. The taxi had to be fumigated. He understood that Aloffit had given some trouble at the hospi-

Dr Aloore. Superintendent of the, Greymouth Public Hospital, stated that defendant was a diphtheria patient al that institution. He was a good patient except when hp indulged in liquor. Defendant had broken away and left the hospital without permission. The doctor realised that enfure ed isolation upon a man who feels well, becomes possibly irksome. but such measures had to be taken for the protection of public health. Defendant in evidence, said ho had never been sick since he entered the hospital, in fact he had never felt better than while there. He had gone there for an operation t 0 his arm. The S.M.: You have heard the medical evidence given that you were suffering from diphtheria, ami that was the reason for your isolation-. why didn’t you g<t permission to leave the hospital ? Defendant replied that, ho could not obtain any satisfaction, he had told the attendants that he wanted to go.

The S.AL: “Don’t you realise it is a serious matter? You may cause in fection to other people.”

Defendant admitted he realised that now. He had been five months in the hospital, and would not be able to start work again until after Christmas. The ATagistratc convicted Aloflit and ordered him t 0 come up for sentence within six months if called upon, and to ]»:iy costs amounting to 18/-. “Understand that 1 am treating you leniently; and you are still liable for punishment if you break out again,” warned His Worship. BUS DRIVERS’ QUARREL.

James Low, motor bus driver, was charged with striking Charles Ver? Leach, another bus driver in Chapei Street on 22nd November. Law plead ?d guilty under provocation. Charles Vere Leach said he was a motor bus driver living at Runanga. At 11.15 a.m. on 22nd November he had occasion to call at Air Hahn’s residence in Chapel Strict, being sent there for a motor tyre. Low came to the door, and started off about a tvi’e gnnge which he said witness had. and which belonged to Low. Witness denied that he had it. Airs Hahn then came to the door and Leach asked her about the tyre he was to pick up, but was informed Air Hahn was not a: home. Upon Airs Hahn again entering the house, witness walked to the gate, where Low started again, but witnes replied that he was in a hurry, amt had no time to argue. Low also ac cused him of telling lies about f> plate glass window, and then struck him in the face. Witness pushed the gate open and made a move to come back, when he realised he was on Airs Hahn ’s property. He then saw a boy. named Brown, who was passing at the time, and a-ked him if he had seen Low strike witness, and Brown replied that he had.

A lad of fourteen years gave evid ence that he saw Leach get a hit from Low. and Leach made no atti.mpt tu hit back.

Low, in evidence, said that complainant had called at the house of his brother-in-law, and his s.st p .’ had told him that Hahn was at the garage Witness then asked Leach about n tyre gauge which belonged ta him (witness), and complainant aad itplied that he knew nothing about H. Leach afterwards admitted t’at he had taken it to pieces without permission. Complainant then bad language, and lifted his arm to strike witness.

The ATagistratc remarked that Leach had apparently provoked Low to a certain extent. 1 ut that was no excuse for Low striking him, and defi'iuinnt would be fined 10s, with 16? eo-’ts and 5s witness’s expenses.