MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 11 June 1935, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

SITTING AT GREYMOUTH. The following cases were dealt with by Mr. JI. Morgan, S.M., at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday. Twenty-five first offenders found on licensed premises after hours were each convicted and fined 15/-. One second offender was fined £l/5/with court costs 10/-. Hannah Josephine Campbell, licensee of the Dominion Hotel, Blackball, (Mr. J. W. Hannan), pleaded guilty to a. charge of selling liquor during prohibited hours on May 19. James Joseph Campbell (Mr. J. W. Hannan) pleaded guilty to a charge that being a person other than the licensee, he did unlawfully supply liquor after hours on May 19th. Constable Hendrickson, of Blackball, stated that he visited tl. e hotel at 6 o’clock on Sunday evening, May 19th, and found a large number of men on the premises, who with the exception of a man named Becker, had no excuse to offer. There were a, number of men in the bar. Witness took the names of 17 men, and about another 17 got away, being close on forty in the hotel. The main bar was packed and the slide leading into the passage was open. Janies Campbell, son of the licensee was serving in the bar, and had no excuse to make, remarking “we are well gone. ’ ’ The licensee when asked if she had any explanation to make said “please yourself what you say.” Senior-Sergeant Quayle said that there were no previous convictions. Mr. Hannan said the circumstances of the case were that most of the men found on the premises were members of a visiting football team. They had changed at the hotel and also had tea there. The licensee was away at the time, but was nevertheless responsible. Defendant had conducted the hotel for 20 years and had not been previously convicted.

The Magistrate said it was an open house apparently. The fact that%nly 17 men were caught and about 17 got away showed that. The licensee would be fined £3, with costs 12/6 and the licensee’s son for unlawfully supplying liquor after hours was fined £3 with costs 10/-.

The licensee of the Ngahere Hotel, Mrs. Annie Bernhardt (Mr. J. W. Hannan) pleaded guilty to a charge of selling liquor after hours on Mav 17.

Sergeant J. Lsbister stated that at 11.15 p.m. in company with SeniorSergeant Quayle and Constable Honey, he visited the hotel. The licensee was at the door and attempted to close it on them, but they gained admission. There were a number of men standing in the passage. Liquor was exposed on the slide in the bar parlour. The Senior-Sergeant said defendant was a first offender.

The Magistrate said the facts were not so bad as in the previous case. Defendant would he fined £2, with costs 12/-.

The licensee of the Railway Hotel, Margaret Weir (Mr. J. W. Hannan) pleaded guilty to a. charge of selling liquor after hours on May 17. Sergeant lsbister stated that at about 11.30 p.m., witness, Senior-Sergeant Quayle and Constable Honey gained admission by the back door, and found three young men and three young girls in a room. They had liquor in their hands and the slide in the room which was connected with the bar was open. The licensee was in the bar which was lighted up.? As witness and the other police officers entered the room, the licensee was saying “Come on hurry up with your orders.” Witness* questioned the young people, and the licensee about having the bar open. The licensee said she was just going to bed when she heard the car arrive and she had gone down to serve them. Defendant, who was a first offender was lined £3 with costs 12s.

Andrew Becker (Mr. J. W. Hannan) and Conrad Hall, both pleaded not. guilty to charges of being found off licensed premises of the Dominion Hotel, Blackball after hours on Mav

Constable Hendrieksen gave similar evidence as in the case against the licensee.

Becker’s defence was that he was a boarder in the hotel, and that his belongings were in room No. (>. He came down from Ikamatua every weekend and stayed at the Blackball hotel.

The S.M. accepted Becker’s explana tion and dismissed the charge.

Hall’s defence was that he was a manager of a football team, the members of which were dressing in the hotel after the match. He. was sitting in the bus, and when the constable went into the hotel, he followed him in order to make the position clear as regards the footballers who were inside. The constable was mistaken when he said that he was in the bar. He met him in the passage and probably he did not remember where it was, in the confusion. He definitely had not had a drink in the hotel. Robert Pollock gave evidence that Hall was sitting in the bus, and was indignant that one or two players were holding them up. He went into the hotel to do his best to get them out. He was away from the. bus for about ten minutes.

Recalled by the S.M., Constable Hendrickson said that it was possible Hall had. gone in behind him.

The S.M. said that there was a doubt about it in his mind, but he would give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and the case would be dismissed.

Joseph Wildennoth was charged that, at. Greymouth, on May 18 he did assault Martin Southam. He pleaded guilty. Senior-Sergeant Quayle said that the •defendant was the son-in-law of a man named Southam, who was 58 years of age. On May 18 the defendant, wlio had had liquor, went to Southam’s, where his wife lived, and going into the bedroom struck Southam several times, blackening his eye, and cutting his face. The defendant’s only explanation was that he had had a few drinks and that Southam had told his (defendant’s) wife that he had been in a hotel drinking. Southam was not strong, in fact he was weak. The defendant was unemployed and liad little money. Southam had come down to the police station that morning and. said that he wanted the defendant warned not to come near his house again, although defendant’s wife, and two children were living there.

Defendant said that on many occasions Southam bad bullyragged his (defendant’s wife) and had sent her out to look for him in hotels, when often he was working late, and was not in hotels at all.

The S.M.: That does not give you the right to hit him.

Defendant: I had no intention Of going that far, but my temper got ahead of me.

Defendant was fined 30/-, in default four days’ imprisonment in the Grey|inouth prison.

Victor Nyberg was charged that, on divers dates between May 1 and May 24, he did steal trees, valued at £l6 12/6, the property of David Armstrong. Senior-Sergeant Quayle said that Mr Armstrong owned laud at Ngahere, and' the accused also owned land nearby. In May another man got permission to cul trees on Armstrong’s property, ami then the accused went along and also started io cut trees on Armstrong’s property, without any authority from Armstrong. He cut quite :i lot and suigged them about two miles, ready to be conveyed to the Ngahere’ railway station. The only excuse that the accused had to offer was that he just hopped in, cut some timber, ami was caught. He (the Senior-Ser-geant) would point out that the value of the timber was not what it was when it was cut, and the accused was charged with stealing its present value.

Accused pleaded guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily.

In reply to the S.M. the Senior-Ser-geant said that the timber was still there.

The accused said that he did not treat the matter as an offence as they were neighbours, and rafforty rules existed. If the cows went on to each other’s property they treated it as a joke. The bush that he entered was practically inaccessible and at the time he went in without permission, he expected to get caught and pay the royalty of 3d a tree to Armstrong. The values of the trees, standing, to Armstrong, would be 30/-, the rest being put on by his work. He was in the silver pine trade and he estimated that he would have got £8 for the posts, not £l6, but Armstrong now had £l6 worth where he had 30/- worth before. As the case was so trivial, and. they had been neighbours for so long, he asked that his name be suppressed, as it would affect his business.

The S.M. said that evidently the accused had increased the value of the timber by his unwarranted action. He (the S.M.) had no right to assume that the accused had authority to cut the timber. The fact that he was a neighbour did not give him a colour of right. The accused had lost the benefit of his work, and he (the S.M.) would take into consideration that it was his first offence and not impose any penalty, but he would be convicted as a warning to others that they could not assume, because they were neighbours, that they could take other people’s timber. He would not order suppression of accused’s name, as that would be part of the punishment. Accused would be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence within six months if called upon. The Inspector of Factories (Mr. H. M. Hopper) proceeded against William Mallinson (Mr. J. W. Hannan) for failure to furnish declarations of income, other than salary or wages, for the years 1932, 1933 and 1934.

Mr. Hannan pleaded guilty to one charge, and the charges for the two latter years were withdrawn by the Inspector.

Mr. Hannan said that the case was one of failure to render returns for the emergency unemployment tax. The defendant was a small farmer and sold about 30/- worth of meat a week. He knew nothing about keeping books, and therefore had not sent in returns. He asked that the S.M. adjourn consideration of penalty for four weeks, to give the defendant a chance to put in his returns.

The Inspector said that the failure of the defendant to pay the tax was depriving the unemployment fund of money for the relief of unemployment, for which it was created. He had no objection to the adjournment, if the defendant would furnish returns tor the past five years.

The defendant was convicted, and the consideration of the penalty was adjourned until July 8. Similar charges were laid against William John Curtain, of Kokiri (Mr. A. H. Paterson). Mr. Paterson said that the defendant had now put in his returns and paid £l4 for the five years. His income was very small.

The Inspector said that on one occasion that the defendant had been questioned hr had said that*.he had <y!ut in his returns, hut checking proved that it was not correct. He had now paid in £l3, including the ten percent penalty for each year, but probably if the inspector had not called on him he would never have paid.

The S.M. said that business men should know that returns were necessary. Defendant would be fined