MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 6 December 1932, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Yesterday’s Sitting Mr AV. Meldrun), S.M., presided over yesterday’s sitting of tho Magistrate’s Court, at Greymouth, when the following cases were dealt with. Senior’ Sergeant C. E. Roach represented the police. AGAIN REMANDED. Appearing on remand, Desmond Ivan Perrin, 25, was charged that on September 20, at New Plymouth, ho stole a clarionet valued at £3/10/-, the property of Lawrence Broadway Davis. On the application of Dcteetivc-Scr-gcant T. E. Holmes, the accused was further remanded until December S, to enable correspondence to arrive from New Plymouth. FOUND DRUNK. A first offender found drunk in Preston Road on Saturday last, and who had been in the lock-up over the week-end, was convicted and discharged. Another first offender found under similar circumstances in Mackay Street at 10.55 o’clock on Saturday night, was convicted and fined 5/-, the amount of his bail. AFTER. HOURS. Two first offenders found on licensed promises during prohibited hours wore convicted and ordered to pay .10/costs each. Robert William Baird was charged with being found on the licensed promises of the Commercial Hotel after hours on October 24. The defendant, who conducted his own defence, entered a plea of not guilty. Constable J. G. Brown said that at 7.45 p.m. on the date in question he had visited the hotel in company with Sergeant Murray; ami had found tho defendant in the bar parlour. He had given as his excuse that he ■went there to talk to a boarder. The defendant, in evidence, stated that he had just come in from the races i and had gone to Ihe back parlour l"i wait for his turn for tea. Afterward.-, as he was going out, he was called back by a boarder, but did not ha\e a drink. Senior Sergeant C. E. Roach said (hat the' bar slide was up ami there ’were three glasses on it. Tn reply to the Magistrate, the defendant said that he was merely talking to the boarder, ami no drink., had been served while he was there. The defendant’s explanation was accepted by the Magistrate ami the rase was dismissed. BY-LAW BBEA.CHES. Frank Bradley was convicted and fined 5/- with 10/- costs for cycling without a light in Tainui Street on November 11. Similar penalties were inflicted on David Spalding and Tofua Anisy for the same offence. Charles Joseph Moore, of Cobden, was charged with riding a motor-cycle without a license, and with failing to stop after an accident. Mr W. I*. McCarthy appeared for the defendant, ami entered a plea of guilty to both charges. He explained that the defendant had been in llari Hari nnd in order io get back quickly had borrowed a motor cycle which he had ridden to Greymouth. Coming down Tainui Street, he collided 'with a young girl on a bicycle who was not watching where she was going. He had looked round and had seen her get up alright, ami had thought that no good purpose Avould be served by stopping. Senior-Sergeant Roach said that the girl knocked down was 12 years. He bad merely looked round and went on. As it happened only the cycle was damaged, but as far as he knew it might have been serious. “Luckily the number of the cycle was taken or we might still be looking for him,” concluded the Sergeant. The defendant was convicted and fined 10/-. with 10/- costs on each charge. Robert Anderson ami Thomas Gallagher, both of whom made voluntary appearances, were each fined tor cycling on the footpath.

UNEMPLOYMENT LEVY. Five charge- of failing to pay his unemployment levy were laid against Patrick Edmond Crofl by I he inspector of Factories, Mr F. G. Davies. A letter of explanation was forwarded from the defendant, who is in Oamaru, slating that he had been out of work- for eighteen months and that he hail been under the- doctor. lie was fined 5/- with .10/- costs on the firM charge ami was convicted without penalty on the others. MINING BREACHES. John Nuttall, a deputy al I Lie Blackball mine, was charged that, on Nov. 4th last, being a person authorised to fire shots electrically, he did fire same without seeing,, as required by Regulation 228 of the Coal Alines Act, 1925, that all persons in the vicinity had taken proper shelter, Inspector Strongman said that on the date in question he had received a telephone message from the mine to say that two men had been injured by the firing of a shot. Nothing previously was known against the defendant. ami apparently bo had mistaken the cable. The defendant was convicted and fined £l. with 10/- coses. INSUFFICIENT TIMBERING. Thomas Freeman was charged that, on. November 11th. at the Ten Mile, being a person employed as a. coal hewer in tho Priaudale mine, where props and bars are used to support the roof at tho working face, being the roof under whic.’i the Avork of get-

ting coa! ami .filling tubs was cairied on, did Jail systematically ami adequately to. support the rouf of his working place, at such regular intervals and in such a uiauner as specified by notice iu the Briamlalc Aline. Inspector JStrongmau said that on November 14th he visited the Briandalc mine. Freeman was employed iu a lace ten fc.it -wide. The law provided that, the props should be set six feet apart, but this had not been done. “ These proceedings have been taken with a view to minimising the number of serious accidents we have hail lately through defective timbering,’’ concluded the Inspector. The defendant was fined £.l, with 10/- costs. Similar penalties were inflicted upon William Hughes fur the same (Jfence in the Briandale Alim?, ami on Alarlra (. rough, Ju thi' Dole on mim-. MAINTENANCE CASE Harriet Lyon Collins, of Blackball, applied fur a maintenance order against her husband, Clifford Stanley Collins, now of Christchurch, for the support of his two year-old daughter. Au order was made requiring the defendant (who was not represented) to pay 10s pc week towards the support of the child, the payment tu be made fortnightly to the Alaintciiauce Olliccr at I. reymuutb.

Wandering Cows A RESERVED DECISION. Joseph Ferguson was charged that at Kumara on November 17th, he did permit cattle to wander on Beach Road, and also that he did release the cows when they had been impounded. He was represented by Air W. P. McCarthy, who entered a plea of not guilty. John Thomas rerring, farmer. Beach Road, Kumara. said that at I p.m. on the day in question, ho had seen eight •rows belonging to the defendant, unattended, in the middle of the road. Witness’s bull was in the paddock, but witness’s wife had noticed it roaring ami it was Jiot long before it had broken out to get with the, cows. There was quite a considerable amount of grass uu the road, but the cows were '■< » glazing. 'They were ju-'t standing there. When witness hud sect) his bull get out he hud tried to drive’the cows towards his gate, aml had been assisted Uy Iwo young meii. whose names be did not know. They hud eventually driven them t<» the. gate, whore iheyi Lud separated the bull from the cows, i

He had then driven the i’ows about three miles to the Kumara Found, ami had not seen the defendant or any of his employees on the way. When Hie defendant had put in an appearance witness had three cows in the pound ami had shut the gat<*. The defendant had started abusing him ami had commenced throwing stones at him, so he had run away ami left (Io- defend ant in charge of th'; cuws. Cross-examined by Air AlcCaitliv, witness said that he was a. neighbour of the defendant’s but he did not know whether he had a run directly oppo-. site. Witness’s farm was held under j a 66 years renewable lease. Witness denied that he knew that the defendant held the run opposite under ft temporary grazing license. Witness hail been cutting timber off -his own property ■ and had applied for a. license. Air McCarthy: Ts it not a fait, that

your bull bus earned a lot of truabh- • I before i" the defendant. Witness: No. The place i.’ securely fenced and the bull would not get out if it wis imf for ihe cow? being on the road. Nir McCarthy; You. have been iii trouble with the defendant, before for dogging’’ his cattle. Did not 1 he defendant interview you over I'\i> <-t>w.he lost ? Witness: My ( onscicn •_ made nu.; je1 store them in hini Mien ihey grew up. Witness said that he did not sec the defendant until he got to the pound. He had then told the defendant that 1 he had no right to take the cattle as the law pcrnlittcd him (witness) to impound cattle that were a nuitance. ‘•I <-;ni’i keep ;.' bull; I haw- had to destroy fiw of ihem through Li.; cows v, and-ring "ii -h- road.'' rom-ludcd the W It lit .:.-. Alice Perring, xxife of the previous witness, said that on the afternoon in ’ question she had kept on eye on the cattle on the road. She had not been able to see whether they were grazing, but could sec that there was no one in charge of them. She hud told her husband, who was inside writing, that ' the bull was restless, and by the time ho hud got down, the bull was out. Witness had then assisted to put the ' • bull Lack. I To Nir McCarthy: The people who had assisted to drive the cows to the gate were cutting wood below our place and they had a dog with them when they were at the gate. For the defence, Nir McCarthy said, that the first point was that the people concerned were practically neighbours. The defendant hud his milking shed about three-quarters of a mile away from his run, where he left a boy in charge while the cattle, wore run about a mile into the bush. On two previous occasions Perring had ‘‘dogged’’ the defendant’s cattle, and in the other case had kept the defendant’s two heifers despite inquiries. “The man is errutie ami has liri'u mentally de fed i vc. ’ ’ Mr Perring: ‘‘You coward! t'eidor Sergeant Roach: “Is his wile mentally defective, t«»o?” On being appealed to. the Magistrate said that unless he could show that i' had some, bearing on the case. Nir McCarthy hail ii'> right to bring that question up. Mr McCartliv then wei>< on to <]iioie the Ah covering the case. lie said that e\ea if the cattle were wandering on the mud the only person that could impound them was one empowered by 1 !;<' heal body, or the man owning land, and I’eriing did not own his land, lie only oci.upx iug it under a «’•; war- | renewable, lease. The only pcr.vn cu titled to impound was an authorised person, or an owner in lee simple. ‘‘l submit that, therefore, there can be no question of impmindiug or release, and therefore the information must be < dismissed. We propose I" give evidence that there was :i boy actually in charge 1 of (lie stock.’’ coio bided .Mi MH :ir ; 'lke defeii«ia i! (, in e\ idi’l" -Ul'l l :i ’i was a, farmer residing al Kumara «J uri».' lion, and that be. al.-o held a temporary ; 1 grazing .license .from die Education 1 Department, over a run. about three * quarters of a mile from his house, <m • I the opposite side j\roin where Perring 1 had his renewable lease. Witness used the run for grazing his cattle and the road, was die only way to gel them J there. Witness had taken them up on f the day in question, and put them i • about, a mile into the bush, at the end' \

of the run. On going home he hud sent a boy up to stop on the road to prevent them coming out. as the land was mt feuc'nl. The next thing he heard was that they were at the pound. Perring always went on witness’s propcity with a dog. to cut timber. The boy had gone into the bush to get the cattle ami had missed Perring. When witm.;.-s had gone up to him lie had started threatening what he was going to do if witness touched the cattle. Then he ran away and left witness with them, after they were too lute for milking. Witness had not i thrown any stones, because he knew what sort of a man Perring was. Witness had complained before that Perring had been dogging his cattle, ami that was what brought them out to the road. Regarding the 10.-s of the two valuable heifers, witness had a Isol Perring about them ami he had denied all knowledge of them. Eighteen months after, however, after he had taken a season’s milk off them, he hud come to witness and had said that he had changed his religion to a Seventh Day Adventist and that they would not admit him to the fold unless he made restitution and witness had gone and got the two heifers. Witness considered that Perring’s fences would not keep a calf in. He had never had other complaints as his cattle were nev- ■ er on the road, only when someone was driving them. Senior Sergeant Poach: You never reported the loss of the heifers to the police, did you? What is the use of bringing up the thing now? You have been prosecuted before for your bull wandering last year and also for using abusive and threatening language t ’ the same man last year. The defendant denied being Duplicated in the Sergeant’s last charge uadi the Senior-Sergeant said that later he would call Constable Wilton tn >ce what he said. Senior-Sergeant Poach: If the b<y hud been looking after the cattle p.’;> perly, he would have seen them. :i--well as Nirs Perring, wouldn’t he? Toy Morris, a youth employed by t bo defendant, said that his duty was to look after the cattle. Ou the day m question he hud gone down about 1-.3D p.m. 1n look after them, but could t;ul sec them and about 3.30 p.m. lie had gone into the bmdi to bring tln-m lumtc to milk. IL’ liud seen Perring "n th-* »"ad and he had gone into the i-u-h with hi- dog. There was no .-ig:i o‘ 'In 1 cattle on the road when I h: d . gone into the bu.-li. He hu-l < .mu- ; on: again about o <>r 5.3(i p.m. a- he: had been unable Io find the < att le in flu- bush. Perring had then taken t’;. i attic t" Ihe pound. Witi;e.-> com-id • I'd that the cows would m-t haw tome out wiihont being driv<-n. < :0.-s-examined by the Scnior-Stw gmiut. witness said that Im usually lound the cattle about I o’cl" ,- k. iii.-i job was to stand there ud<l keep them i off the road.

Lawrence Witheringion, contractor, <T Kumara Junction. s;iid that he kmwv | that the two stolen heifers were in milk during the tini<- Ihnf thex were in Peri ing ’s po>sc.-: i<»ii. Herbert \\ itheringf<>n .»;;\e evidence Hint, about txvelvc months ag". when working for the. defendant, he had actually seen Perring s dogs (< doggin.' r ” the defendant’s cattle and when witness had gone over to Perring*s he had toid him to get oil’ the place. Constable T. G. Wilton, stationed at Kurmira. sai-1 that it was correct that the defendant had been convicted for allowing a bull to wander, but that it was defendant’s son that was convict-'

ed for threatening behaviour towards Perring. Tht> run of the defendant’s xva a “free-for-all,” numbers of people cutting timber oil it. PcrringY fcnees were alright. Witness had never seen Perring’s cattle wandering, but he had seen the defendant’s cattle doing so. Senior-Sergeant Poach said that it | would be necessary to look into the point raised by Mr McCarthy regarding the distinction between owner an-1 occupier. He w’otild suggest that if the defendant put cattle on land without a proper fence, even with a boy there, he permitted them to wander. f This concluded the evidence, and the ! Magistrate reserved his decision for a week.