“MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 15 February 1938, Page 8

“MAGISTRATE’S COURT

SITTING AT GREYMOUTH. The following cases were dealt with by Mi- Raymond Ferner, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at . Greymouth yesterday:— Denis Greaney, pleaded not guilty to being on licensed premises after hours on December 24, 1937, and with a breach of his prohibition order. Evidence was given by Constable Johnston that he saw defendant coming out of an hotel. Defendant claimed that he went into the hotel to use the convenience. “That constable hounds me round the town like a criminal,” said defendant heatedly. “God held me when I get excited,” said defendant, after being pacified by the Magistrate, who told him that he must not get excited. Defendant denied stating to the constable that he had had a drink in the hotel. He went in there through necessity. On the charge of being unlawfully on. licensed premises defendant was fined 5s with 10 costs, and for the breach of his prohibition order £1 and costs 10s. On a charge of crossing over Albert Street railway line when it was not clear, on December 31, 1937. Archibald Leonard Foster was lined £1 wth 10s costs. The Magistrate remarked that defendant was lucky he was not killed. James Robert Keith (Mr J. W. Hannan) pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to give way to a car approaching from the right at the intersection of Winnie and Shakespeare Streets on December 23. Senior-Sergeant Quayle said that a car driven by defendant collided with one driven by Mr Milne on December 23. Defendant was fined £1 with 10s costs. William Venice Aitken, appearing on remand, was charged with being a rogue and a vagabond. The Magistrate said that the medical report on accused was now to hand, and from that report he thought that he would be justified in making arrangements to have accused admitted to an institution. In the meantime the case would stand down until Saturday morning. ISSUED VALUELESS CHEQUE. Appearing on remand, John Brewer, alias David Ackroyd, a farmer, aged 42 years, was charged that on oi about October 23, 1937, at Greymouth with intent to defraud, did obtain from Harry Digby James the sum of €5O by means of a certain false pretence, to wit, a valueless cheque for that amount, drawn on the Bank of New Zealand at Temuka. Accused was represented by Mr W. D. Taylor. Detective-Sergeant H. E. Knight, said that the facts of the case were somewhat unusual from the ordinary false pretence. On October 23 last, the Greymouth Trotting Club was holding a meeting xt Victoria Park and Mr H. D. James was in charge of I the totalisator. It was the practice I of the club that all cheques must first be endorsed and passed by the | club. On October 23, just prior to the races starting, accused approachI ed the secretary, Mr. W. Pring, who I was introduced to him by some person whose identity could not now be ascertained. Accused wrote out a cheque for £5O in his own name. Mr Pring endorsed the cheque and also applied the stamp of the Trotting Club. Accused then obtained the money from the totalisator. Mr Pring had seen accused at previous meetings. Mr James was just about to pay the money into the Bank of New Zealand when he was approached by accused who said that he had just realised that the cheque was drawn on the wrong bank. Accused induced Mr James to give him the cheque back, stating that on arrival back at Temuka he would send him either a valid cheque or the cash. There was a good deal of camouflage on the part of accused. There was an exchange”of wires between accused and Mr James, and accused had kept making promises, saying the money would be forthcoming. Subsequently accused disappeared from Temuka and Mr James complained to the police. Accused was arrested in Auckland under the name of David Ackroyd. He at first denied that he was Brewer, but finally admitted it. Accused was remanded from Auckland, stating it was his intention to plead not guilty, but he had since intimated that he desired to plead guilty. Accused had no criminal record so far as the police were concerned. The Magistrate said that the Court was prepared to exercise summary jurisdiction under the Justice of the Accused elected to be dealt with summarily and pleaded guilty. Detective-Sergeant Knight said the facts were as outlined by him. Little was known of accused. He was an Englishman and a single man. who came to New Zealand some years ago. Accused had secured a position as a farm manager for a lady at Temuka. who had considerable money, but at the time of accused’s disappearance her money had all disapappeared and she was now heavily mortgaged. Mr Taylor said that no weight could be placed on the inference relating to the position of the woman, which had been drawn by the Detec-tive-Sergeant. Accused had four years’ war service, coming out to New Zealand in 1920. Accused and the lady referred to were interested in a trotting mare, and they bad come over to Greymouth to see it running. It did not start and the trainer had hot advised them that ’t was not running. As often happened at race meetings, accused was given “a sure thing.” He wrote out a cheque, and cashed it and put the bulk of it offia horse. Unsatisfactory features of the case were the system of endorsing cheques at race . meetings, which gave people facilities to obtain money by cashing cheques and invest heavily, and the other was the returning of the cheque by Mr James When James could not get the money he put into operation the machinery of the criminal law. Accused was a man of 42 years of age, who had not given any trouble before. Accused went to Dunedin after leaving Temuka, in an effort to get the money, but failed and when he heard that the“police were making investigations, he became panicky and left for Auckland Where he lived under an assumed name. The reason why he had pleaded not guilty was that he was advised by friends, not legal ones, that the police could_not prosecute him if the cheque could not. be produced. He suggested that the provisions of probation be enterided to accused, and that provisions should be made for restitution. The Magistrate said that the offence

was a serious one for which- the accused might well have been indict-, ed. There was a degree of ingenuity, in the offence. • He was not prepared to grant probation until further inquiries of accused’s conditions of life were” obtained. Accused would be remanded for a week until inquiries had been made in South Canterbury. DRIVER'S LICENSE CANCELLED. Douglas Mason Logan, medical ■practitioner, was charged with negligently driving a motor-car in. High Street, on December 24. He was also charged with failing to keep to the left of the roadway. Mr J. W. Hannan who appeared for defendant, pleaded not guilty. On his application, all witnesses were ordered out of Court. Senior-Sergeant Quayle said that bn Christmas Eve about 10.30 p.m. Mr Brown, a’ taxi-driver was driving towards South Beach and on getting near the intersection of Buccleugh Street, a collision occurred between defendant’s car and that of Brown’s. Brown was on his correct side of the road and was driving at a moderate pace. The car driven by defendant did hot stop after the accident. It was an hour and a half later that defendant came to the police station and reported that he had been involved in ah accident. ‘ James Brown, senr., taxi-driver, Greymouth, said that he was proceeding to South Beach with six passengers, when defendant’s car came towards his car and struck the front mudguard on his car, about fifteen feet off Buccleugh Street. Considerable damage was caused to witness’s car.,., After the accident, witness’s car was disabled and swung over to the right to the wrong side of the road for a distance of about 25 feet. Nobody was injured. The other car did not stop. It had good lights. The other car seemed to be travelling at a great speed, roughly 50 miles per hour. Witness did not pull out to pass the car in front of him. To Mr Hannan: Witness made no attempt to pass the car in front of him. By the roaring of the engine he thought the other car was being driven in second gear. Constable William Cogswell said that when defendant came to the Police Station about 11.45 p.m., he did not have a very clear idea of the accident. He said that the other car did not stop and that therefore it would be alright for/him to carry on. There was a suggestion that Dr. Logan had had liquor, but when this was ■ suggested to him he said that he would not say anything about the matter until he had consulted a solicitor. There was a suggestion during the conversation that defendant had had liquor. Defendant was alright then, although his appearance indicated that he had had liquor. David Absalom, mine foreman, Waiuta, a passenger in the taxi, said that it would be travelling at between 20 and 25 miles per hour. A person would not gain the impression that the collision was so slight that it was not worth stopping. Matthew McColl, yardman, South Beach, also gave evidence. He said that the car came across on the road on to its wrong side. He thought that the car came straight down High Street.' Francis Earnest Bradley, sawmill employee, South Beach, also gave evidence, stating that defendant’s car swerved rigfK into them and went straight on. Cecil Murphy, plumber, who was walking along High Street at the time of the accident, said that the car which did not stop, was travelling at a great speed,—over 40 miles per hour. Constable J. W. Hammond said that defendant called at 11.30 p.m., to report that he had been involved in a collision with another car. Defendant seemed slightly . perturbed. Defendant said that the other car had not stopped and he did not see why he should. Defendant said that he had a drink during the evening, but if witness considered him intoxicated, to call a doctor and examine him. Witness told defendant he did not consider him to be intoxicated. There were four unopened bottles of beer in the back seat of defendant’s car. „ ~ This concluded the case for the PI Mr C Hannan said that defendant’s car had picked up passengers m Cowper Street, and had proceeded along Buccleugh Street to High St. He was turning into High Street when the collision occurred. It seemed extraordinary he said, that the witnesses for the prosecution did not know if defendant’s car came out of Buccleugh Street, or down High Street. Despite Brown stating that he was only travelling at 20 miles per hour, it seemed remarkable that his car should travel such a distance as it did after the accident Defendant had been under the impression the other car was not damaged, and that it had continued on its journey, and he did likewise. Defendant, in evidence, described how he had driven out of Buccleugh Street, and struck a second car after he had passed a first one. It appeared that the second car had been trying -to pass the one in front, he said. He was travelling about 30 miles per hour and to his mind the other car was travelling fast. The other car seemed to swing across on to his right front mudguard. He slowed down after the collision, and as they could not see the other car proceeded on as they desired to catch a late train to Christchurch. Misses Flora McDonald and Bernadine Stedman, passengers in Dr. Logan’s car, gave corroborative evidence. The S.M said that in this case he had no difficulty in accepting the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution, in the main, and they were borne out by the skid marks observed by the police ocer. Defendant’s explanation as to why he did not stop was not acceptable. The collision had caused a considerable amount of damage to the other man s car, and a person who was not negligent, indifferent or intoxicated, Should have realised that something serious had happened. On the charge of negligent driving, defendant would be convicted and fined £5, with £1 Ils court costs, and his current driving license would be suspended. On the second charge he would be convicted and ordered to pay costs 10s, and witnesses’ expenses £2 0s lOd.