MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 19 March 1940, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREYMOUTH SITTING. Mr G. G. Chisholm. S.M., was on the Bench at the weekly sitting n<. the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday. THEFT CHARGES. Raymond Llody Mclntyre, was charged that on January lu, 1940, at Stillwater, he did stsc* one letter, one 10s postal note and one Is postal note of a total value of Ils 2d, the property of Eunice Richardson. $ Mr J. W. Hannan, for accused, pleaded guilty. Detective C. H. Davis said that the letter concerned in the charge wa, given to accused but never reached its destination. On a complaint being made to the Department, the postal notes were traced to accused, who on being interviewed -by Detective-Ser-geant Knight, readilv admitted taking the postal note and dstroying the letter. Accused was not normal mentally, 7and was not *n need of the money.

Mr Hannan said that accused was 27 and was living with a relative on a farm in the country. He had never been in trouble, and was of low mentality. The relative with whom he lived had given him the letter to post. He j&as dependent on the relative, but worked hare? and saved his money. He probably did not realise what he was doing and counsel asked that his name be suppressed, and that a fine be imposed. The Magistrate said that he did not think that accused would be prejudiced by publication of his name He would' be convicted and fined £l. and ordered to makv restitution of Ils 2d, the value of the postal notes. Valdamai Rasmussen, of Kumr.a labourer aged 30, was charged that on or about January 5 at Kuinara, he did steal a bicycle valued at £4, the proI pertv of one, Ivan May. Asking for a remand. Semor-Ser-geant G. F. Bonisch <aid that at least one other charge was pending. He hoped to be ready to proceed with the case before Easter. Accused was remanded until Thursday morning next. •

MOTOROING CASES. Bert BilleLt, for whom Mr W. Douglas Taylor appeared, pleaded guilty to a charge of negligent driving on, October 30, the case having been ad-1 journed until after the hearing of an indictable charge in the Supreme, Court. I Senior-Sergeant Bonisch said that accused had stool his trial in the Supreme Court. Mi' Taylor said that there was no question of speed and nobody was injured. Billett was fined £1 with costs 19s Albert Ward was charged with ex-, ceeding the speed limit for heavy vehicles. Traffic Inspector,. A. E. Sloss said that defendant gave the excuse that he had been stuck on the road and was making up time. A fine of £1 with costs 10s was imposed. Charles Edward Senior, on a change of failing to carry a warrant of fitness was fined 10s with costs 10s. Trevor William Murcott pleaded guilty to a charge of carrying a pillion rider on a motor cycle. Inspector Sloss said defendant was a learner, and one of the regulations was that no pillion rider should be carried. Defendant said that he had been unable to go back to Nelson to get , tested. He had been here since before Christmas. The Traffic Inspector said defend- . ant could have the registration lifted in Greymouth. He was fined ss, with , costs 12s. ; James Leonard Bourke on a charge , of allowing a cow to wander at Boddytown, was convicted and fined 5s with costs 10s. NO BUILDING PERMIT Samuel Stewart, on the information ; of the Greymouth Borough Council was charged that being the owner of a certain building situated in Alexander Street, Greymouth, he did pro- • ceed to add to the said building with- < out first obtaining a permit. Mr C. R. McGinley appeared for the informant, and Mr W. Douglas Taylor for defendant pleaded not guilty. , Mr McGinley said that on Marcn -7, ; 1931, the Council! decided that garages should not be erected in advance of ‘ the front line of a house. Defendant made an application for permission ( to extend his garage m advance of , the front line of the nouse, and later he made application to extend his ! house frontage to enable him to ex- . tend the garage. The Council de- .' cided to approve of the extension ot the house, and to hold over the matter , of the garage until later. The house extensions were riot proceeded w y“’ • but Stewart subsequently extended ,

the garage. Allan John Fairmaid, Borough engineer, gave evidence along the ones of counsel’s statement. Witness refused to accept the permit fee of as for the last application made for permission to extend the garage. The work had since beef completed and the Council instructed him to prosecute. , ~ . To Mr Taylor: The resolution ol 1931 was not a by-law. The house was built before the resolution was passed. The resolution was silent as to extensions of buildings. The resolution was not sufficient to enable him to' prosecute, unless there was some further resolution of the Council. The Council wished to stop garages abutting on to the stree.t, and they wished this to apply to all hous.'s. Stewart’s plans and specifications complied with the by-laws. There was a motor garage on the road in Byron Street, the permit having been granted within the last six months. It was very costly for property owners to build on their own properties m Byron Street. Under no circumstances would the Council permit it if garages could be reasonably put on the property. The garage ext:ns on of Stewart’s was opposed to planning principles as it spoilt the symmetiy of the street. The Town Planning Scheme, in Greymouth was not yet finalised. 1 . Mr Taylor said that it was c.aimeo that the Council was bound to issue the permit. Local bodies had power to exercise their resolutions if they were in the form of by-laws. Tne Council could- not have scraps of a town planning scheme :n resolutions j on its books. Stewart could have

his permit by spending £5O or more by going to th e Supreme Court to compel the Council, to Co so. Stewart decided .not to go to the Supreme Court, but to proceed with the building. He submitted that -the case should be dismissed as trivial. Council invited the Magistrate to inspect the garage himself. The next door neighbour had never complained about the garage spoiling his visibility. Defendant, in evidence, said that 12 feet were put on the garage. The front of the garage was ./our feet hack from the street. To Mr McGinley: The garage extensions were of more importance than the house extensions. The house extensions were not intended as a “blind”. Mr McGinley submitted that the by-law was reasonable and that the Council was not bound to give its reasons for refusing any permit. The Magistrate, reserving decision, said he would inspect the property.