MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 5 March 1929, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREYMOUTH SITTING. The usual weekly sitting of the Greymouili Magistrate's Court was held yesterday morning. Mr W. Meldrum, S.M., presiding over a short list of cases. A first offender found on licensed premises was convicted and ordered to pay costs amounting to 10/-. ALLEGED BREACH OF MINES ACT The Inspector of Mines proceeded against James Hadcroft, manager of the Bellvue mine, for a breach of a section of the Coal Mines Act, whereby he placed a lad of 17 years in charge of a boiler, the Act requiring that the age be 21 years. Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for Hadcroft. The Inspector gave evidence of having visited the mine in November last where he found Robert Smith, a lad of 17 years, in charge of the boiler. He spoke to the manager, and later confirmed his notice in writing of a breach of the Coal Mines Act. In January he again visited the mine, and Robert Smith was still in charge of the boiler.

To the S«M ,: The boy is 17 years of age, and the Act requires the age to be 21 years. James Hadcroft, manager of the Bellvue mine, stated that in November Smith senior., was in charge of the boiler, and was still charge on second occasion when the Inspector visited the mine. Robert Smith was working at the boiler, but Smith senior was; running the engine. Smith jsenr., was a miner, but owing to having received an injury to his foot, he was put in to look after the boiler, and repair some trucks. Edward Smith stated that he was In charge of the boiler fnom the date of the notice received from the Inspector. The boy fired the boiler. Th c S.M. held that upon the notice having been received, it appeared that Smith senr., was placed in charge of the boiler. The kid was apparently not in charge, and he would accept the explanation given by defendant. BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT. The Borough Engineer (Mr A. J. fairmaid) proceeded against M. Conz% blacksmith for failure to submit pia is of proposed alterations to a building, and also failing to obtain a permit before commencing building opi ration-;-Mr J. W. Hannan, for complainant, stated that a permit to build must be ob ained from the Borough Council, and plans submitted to and passed by the Engineer, befdre building operations wore connnenefed. Conra had applied for a permit to build stables on a section in Leonard Street but the Council had refused to grant it. ’Defendant has carried on and erected loose Loxes in his blacksmith’s, shop on the adjo.n ing property, for horses which he was training.

-A. J. Fairmaid stated that minetim.in 71928 Cs:iza tifid applied for a permit, in fact, he had applied o? several occasions, but it wds not granted. On January 17th, witness received information that alterations were ra progress in defendant’u’ blacksmith's .shore Witness visited the shop', anl found that Conza bad in hand the erection "i partitions for iwo loose bdxgs. The work had Jiincg been completeil. There was evidence o£ horses- having been in the boxes'. Conza had not dbLaine i a permit, and no plans or specifications had been submitted.

Replying to Lir W. P. McCarley, witness said that the boxes were bu-'r of timber of a c'ass in keeping with the building. The Council’s cbnteiilion was that, the work had been earrki out without a permit. The ‘Council also objected to the stables being erected in that particular locality. William Cocurane, Inspector of Nuisances, corroborated the evid°nj? of the Engineer. Mr McCarty. M defendant, explained that two boxes and been built in the s’.op, > which -o put horses to facidtu’e ihc work of shoeing. He suoraitted that the by-law was not to be interpreted to cover such minor and temporary alterations as had been made in that instance, anl at his suggestion the Magistral o adjourned and visited the stables. Upon resuming, Mr Hannac quoted authority showing that the by-law in this instance was not unreasonable, in fact, that it had been framed io deal with such cases where alterations were made which were not deemed desirable. It was evident that vie boxes were in constant use, and were used 'for other purposes than that of holding 'horses while shoeing work was being undertaken.

Mr McCarty contended that it was purely a case of degree, and that th© case should be decided on its merit \ The degree of the alteration made was not sufficient to require it to come within the provisions of the bylaw. £?

The Magistrate said that as fur the alterations which had been earned out. \hey had been for a definite purpose. Formerly the premises were used as a blacksmith shop, but they had been altered to house racehorses. It therefore came within the scope of the bylaws, and defendant had failed to forward plans or to obtain a permit. He was fined £1 with costs on the lastmentioned charge, and £1 on the other, with solicitor’s fee £1 Is in each case. TAYLOR V. TAYLOR. SEPARATION GRANTED. Further evidence was heard in thc adjourned case of Martha Taylor versus George Taylor, in which the complainant asked for a separation order, and maintenance against her husband- The case has been before the Court on several occasions, for the purpose of hearing further evidence for both sides. Finality was reached yesterday, after tho Magistrate had heard the evidence of James Sheedy, a son-in-law, and th e evidence of defendant. His Worship made an order for separation, but held that on the present earnings of defendant he was not receiving enough t 0 have an order for maintenance made against him. No costs were allowed.