MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 17 August 1937, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

SITTING AT GREYMOUTH.. The following cases were dealt with by Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M, at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday;— Appearing on remand, Stanley James Milne (Mr W. D. Taylor) was charged with disobedience of a maintenance order made at Cromwell on November 13, 1929, in respect of a child. The arrears to March 1, 1937, amounted to £142 16s. Mr J. W. ’ Hannan represented complainant. After hearing the evidence of defendant, on his application for variation of the order and remission ofarrears, the Magistrate said that defendant would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment if he did not comply with the terms of the order. This sentence would not take effect so long as defendant regularly paid the amount of the current order, and something off the arrears week by week. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour, the warrant to be suspended so long as he pays the current order, and 7s 6d per week off the arrears, the first payment to be made on August 23. He was not prepared to remit the arrears, and the complaint for the variation would be dismissed.

BOOKMAKER FINED £4O. John William Newnham was charged that, >on August 10, being the occupier of premises in Albert Street, he used them as a common gaming house. A plea of guilty was entered to the charge. . * Detective-Sergeant H. E. Knight stated that defendant, who was a married man, arrived at Greymouth in March last from Nelson, where he had just been convicted and fined £l5 for keeping a common gaming house. On March 20,. he was again before the 1 Court and fined £l5 for a similar offence. Since then, defendant had carried on business in the same ‘manner. On Saturday, August 7, a complaint was made by himself, and on August 10 the warrant was executed on the premises, and material in connection with betting found. His business was almost a double business, and was not an extensive one. Defendant had been offered an agency by a Dunedin bookmaker, and foolishly accepted it. Defendant said'that since he had last been convicted, he had conducted , a little business on his own account, which was earning him only a little more than sustenance The Magistrate said that accused had been warned on the last occasion, when he had been treated leniently. On this occasion he ' would be fined £4O. Defendant: What is the option. The Magistrate: That will be fixed later, if you intend to default. Defendant: Well, x intend to de- - fault. . The Magistrate: That is your affair. Defendant: Thank you, sir.

GAOL FOR THEFT. < Hugh Pirie Greig, a fishmonger, 28, ■ a native of Scotland (Mr a. H. Paterson), appeared on remand on a charge of theft of £25, the property of Herbert Leach, at Greymouth, on August 22, 1936. Defendant had pleaded not guilty to the charge. Accused elected to be dealt with summarily, and the Magistrate agreed to this course. Accused also appeared for sentence on two charges of breaches of his prohibition order at Christchurch on February 26, 1937, and on March 23, 1937, to which he had pleaded guilty. Detective-Sergeant H. E. Knight prosecuted. Herbert Leach, carrier, stated that he wrote to accused who was working at the . Addington Fish Supply Co., Christchurch and asked him to obtain a motor truck. He arranged for the purchase of a truck for £75, and sent a cheque for this amount to accused to pay to the garage proprietor. About a week afterwards, accused arrived in Greymouth with the truck, in company with members of his family. When witness asked accused for the receipt and papers for the truck, he said that they were at his sister-in-law’s place in Chapel Street. Accused stayed with witness for 13 weeks, and ’worked with witness in the fish business. They had intended to start up in partnership. He did not know until this year that the truck was not fully paid for, when it was seized from witness oy the garage people. To Mr Paterson: He would deny that there ./was an arrangement that accused should raise £25, or that he had failed to do so, and used portion of the £25 in having the truck brought to Greymouth, the remainder of this amount going back into the business. Accused was paid no wages by witness whilst at Greymouth.

William Clarke ’Edwards, garage proprietor, Christchurch, said that the transaction between witness and Leach for the truck was for a cash payment. Witness said that accused handed to him the cheque for £75. Accused said a deposit of £5O was being paid, and the balance was to be spread over a period of six months, and that the £25 balance was to be used in buying fish and vegetables and to take the truck to the West Coast. An agreement' to this effect was drawn up and signed. The truck was seized in January last. Mr Paterson said that if accused’s story was true, and it was supported by the second witness, then this seemed really to be an attempt to' use the criminal law, by Leach, to get back some of the money he lost. Accused, he said, had lived for thirteen weeks with Leach, and nothing was done to get the papers for the truck, or even after accused had gone away. Nothing was done until the truck was seized. Accused, in evidence, said that Leach was to raise £lOO. but he advised witness by telephone that 'ne could not do so and sent £75, stating that he would like witness to bring some fish and vegetables from Christchurch. The arrangement was for witness to sign the agreement and promissory notes and he did this. He had to truck the lorry from Springfield to Otira. He had two breakdowns on the way over. He brought half a ton of potatoes, and three cases of smoked fish with him. Leach never asked witness about the expenditure in bringing the lorry over. Witness got no wages here, the business not progressing as anticipated. Witness had gone to England to see some relatives to see if he could raise money.

To the Detective-Sergeant: Witness

had instructions from Leach to bring the lorry to Greymouth. He did not remember getting a Joan of £l5 from Mr Sim, or asking him for this amount, to come over here and start a business. Accused said that he obtained money previously in connection with an alleged fish business in Nelson, and was admitted to two years’ probation for obtaining £BO, which was not paid off when this case arose. He had gone under the name of McFarlane when employed on the Rangitata in order to get home and ooiain the money from his relatives in order to pay his debts. This concluded the hearing of the evidence.

“Accused will be convicted,” said the Magistrate. <

Detective-Sergeant Knight said that with reference to the charges of breach of probation, accused was placed on two years’ probation in Nelson in 1932, and ordered to make restitution of £BO 2s 6d on false pretences charges. The Probation Officer, Mr D. _R. Lloyd, said that accused had occasioned Probation Officers a great, deal of trouble. He had paid about £l3 off the £BO, and had made no honest endeavour to pay off the balance. He had been given every opportunity to report, but had not complied with the terms of the order.

The Magistrate asked the Probation Officer if he had any instructions to ask that accused be sentenced on the original charges. The Probation Officer: No, sir. Mr Paterson pointed out that in the period of five years, accused was for three years on relief, and was mostly in a relief camp, and could not pay anything off during that time. He had got no wages whilst in Greymouth. He had the job on the boat now, and if he could go back to it he was willing for an order to be made on his wages with the company, and pay off as much as he could in that way. The Magistrate said that in regard to the theft charge, the offence appeared to be a mean and tricky theft of the £25. Leach trusted accused, and he was deceived with dire consequence with both his money an the truck. Accused was a man, in his opinion, who was not deserving of any consideration. He had been convicted on three charges of false pretences, and was admitted to probation on condition that he repaid the money defrauded. He had certainly not had much employmen. but it was significant that he had made no earnest attempt to comply with the terms of his probation, as he had"only repaid £l2 6s Bd. Ther were also adverse reports of seven Probation Officers one of whom said. “This man is one of the mos. ible humbugs I have ever dealt with Accused, the Magistrate said not only abused the provisions of the Probation Act, but he had left th country without authority. On the theft charge, accused tenced to four months imprison ment with hard labour in Paparua Prison On each of the other charges of breach of probation, accused wduld be sentenced to one months imprisonment, the sentences to be cumulative. The Magistrate pointed out that accused might yet be sen fenced on the other charges of which he was convicted in Nelson in 1932.

DAMAGE TO RESERVE. Arthur Jacobs, Kaiata, was charged with cutting down a number of light shrub trees on the Kaiata Scenic Reserve, without the written consent ot the Minister. . Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge. Sergeant F. R. Ebbett said that on June 7th' last, the Fields Inspector and members of the Domain Board were inspecting the area. They met defendant who quite frankly aamitted cutting the trees down as his stock had been allowed to wander through the Domain. The Lands Department pressed for a heavy penalty. He pointed out that on the other hand defendant was a man with a family, of ten, and was in poor circumstances. Defendant had been most frank aoout the matter. The Magistrate asked what was the value of the timber.

Sergeant Ebbett said that it was valueless.

Defendant said that he knew that the area did not belong to him, out thought it was only river reservation. Owing to a flood, the grass had been silted over, and his stock was short ot food, and he had cut the scrub for tnern.

The Magistrate said that no great harm appeared to have been done in this case, and he did not intend to inflict a heavy penalty, but he would do so in future cases of the kind. Defendant was fined £1 with 10s costs. Leonard Webb did not appear to answer two charges of disobedience of maintenance orders, in respect of his wife, Edna Webb, and their child (now deceased). The arrears amounted to £l2 12s. Defendant was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment in respect ot the order relating to the child, warrant not to issue so long as defendant pays the full amount of the arrears £1 3s 3d. within seven days. In respect to the other order, defendant was sentenced to two months' imprisonment, warrant to be suspended so long as defendant pays 10s a week current maintenance and “7s 6d a week off the arrears, first payment to be made on August 23rd.