MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 25 February 1941, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

SITTING AT GREYMOUTH. Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M.. presided at yesterday’s sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, when Senior Sergeant G. F. Bonisch conducted the cases for the police | For riding cycles during the hours] of darkness, with no lights attached to their machines, Douglas Marsh, Ralph Beumelberg, Leslie Lindley, David Saunders. Eric Collie, David Wallace, Gordon Reginald Buchanan, Stanley Haines, Leslie Stanton and Joseph Cunningham were convicted ] and fined 10s with 10s costs, and Stanley Partridge was convicted and lined 10s with 11s costs. Noel McGuire. who made a voluntary appearance, pleaded guilty' and was fined 10s with 10s costs. Robert George Thompson, who pleaded guilty to a similar charge, was fined 10s with 10s costs. Alexander M. Jones also appeared and pleaded guilty to two charges of riding a cycle at night with no light attached within 24 hours. The defendant said that the cycle bad been stolen and when it had been recovered al) the accessories had been stripped, and he.had not had an opportunity to replace them. On the second occasion he was caught, he had been to Runanga to see a sick person and’ had returned later than he had c’xpected. He had however, walked until ho had reached the Suburban Hotel corner, where, thinking that he was out of the town area, he mounted.

The Magistral.-- said that the excuse did not justify Ihe accused’s riding a cycle without a light On the first charge he was convicted and fined 5s and It's costs, and on the second charge ho was convicted and fined 10s with I.os costs

Three statutory first offenders, charged with being on licensed premises after hours, on Febru’ary 7, 1941, were each convicted and fined 5s with 10s costs. Richard Honey of Paroa was charged on the information of the Post and Telegraph Department District Radio Inspector (Mr R. Simon) with operating an unlicensed radio receiving set. He was convicted and fined 10s with 12s costs. Annie Gage of Paroa, was’convicted and fined 10s with 10s costs on a similar charge.

Catherine Annie May Brown (Mr E. B. E. Taylor) pleaded guilty to a charge of a breach of a prohibition order.

Die Senior-Sergeant said that the defendant wont Io a picnic al Hokitika, and while there drank a considerable amount of liquor. She missed the train back and took a taxi to Greymouth. On arrival at Greymouth she was unable to pay her fare, having only 14s in her possesion. The taxi driver was taking her to the police station and was nearly there, when she deliberately opened the back door and fell out. When she fell she was slightly injured, being taken to the Grey xviver Hospital from where she was released the following day. Several bottles of beer were broken when she fell from the taxi. The defendant had been convicted for theft the previous month.

Mr Taylor said that. Ihe incident was very unfortunate, coming as it did only a month after the defendant’s previous conviction and prohibitum. xho had been all right up to

the lime of the picnic, her husband having kept control over her, but as he did not go to the picnic, the defendant had a lapse. She was in company with some friends at Hokitika. She had been waiting for a

friend when the tram left. Ihe taxi had been secured only with the intention of catching the tram. Ihe taxi-fare had since been paid. The Magistrate said that the serious aspect of the case was the condition of the defendant so soon alter her previous conviction. She was convicted and fined £1 with 10s costs.

LOADED FIREARM. PRESENTED AT ITALIAN Thomas Calder Reid, a miner aged 58 of Taylorville, was charged that on February 20, 1941, at Taylorville, he did present a loaded firearm, to wit a 22 calibre Winchester rifle at Battisa Caldana, and further that on the same day. at Taylorville, he did procure possession of a fireaim, a .22 calibre rifle, the property of John Dixon, by way of trespass, and further that he was in possession of a firearm not being for some lawful. proper and sufficient purpose. The defendant, who had been remanded from Saturday. pleaded guiltv to all three charges. Senior Sergeant Bonisch said that the accused, a widower with a large family, al] of whom were under 16 years of age, was a miner employed at the Wallsend Mine. Caldana also worked in the same mine. The defendant used to board at the same house at Taylorville as he did. Owing to his drinking habits, the defendant had been told to leave the boarding house and he /found board ( elsewhere. He had borne a grudge] against Caldana, blaming him for his] having to leave the boarding house. | He also believed that Caldana spied] on him. The defendant boarded with a man named Dickson, whom he knew had a rifle. One night after | having consumed a quantity of liquor | he went to the house about midnight] and took the rifle, which he loaded with a cartridge, in his possession, , He then proceeded to where Caldana was staying and entered his bedroom ] turning on the light. He then pre-I sented the rifle at Caldana. The] rifle had a safety catch on, and al-; though the defendant endeavoured to release the catch, he was unable to do so. and Caldana springing out of bed, subdued him after a struggle, he , having thrown the weapon out of the , window. Constable Hammond was , called and he arrested the defendant. I He was la respectable man when sob-, er, and a good worker, however, ] when drinking, his habits were not I good. There was nothing previously] known against him. The Magistrate 'said that it seemed that the defendant had not been bluffing. The Senior-Gergeant said that the defendant was in such a state of intoxication that he could not manipulate! the safety catch on the rifle so as to i use it. If the catch had not been on. I he would not like to suggest what' might have happened I The defendant stated that he left' I the boarding house of his own accord. The Magistrate said that he wanted | to know the defendant’s reason for the very serious charge, on which he | was appearing. The defendant: The man followed me everywhere I went, spying at me through blackberry bushes- It is not fair that a British subject should bo spied on by an Italian. |

In answer to a question by the Magistrate, the defendant, said that he had presented the rifle to frighten Caldana. He admitted having a few drinks on the night in question. The Magistrate said that he was not very satisfied with the defendant’s explanation. He would like to know if there was a risk of the defendant doing something else in the

future The defendant did not seem very sorry for his action. The defendant said that Caldana had come to him after the incident and had admitted his fault, shaking hands with the defendant. Constable Hammond said that he thought tli a t it was due to drink tpat the defendant went to Caldana, and although he had said in his statement that he intended to use the rifle, he (the constable) did not think he would go so far. He was not a hibitual drinker, but about once every eight, months he had a drinking bout, lasting about a week The Magistrate convicted the defendant and ordered him to come up for sentence within three months if called upon, on the condition that he takes out a prohibition order against himself, and reports to ihe polic

ADJOURNED ACTION. The adjourned case in which the Nemona Gold Dredging Company, Ltd. (Mr J. W. Hannan), was charged by the Conservator of Forests (Mr F. A. Kitchingham) with two charges of unlawfully felling timber. The Company was charged that, between October 1, 1937, and March 31, 1938, at Cockeye Creek, Marsden, the Company did without lawful authority fell or destroy certain forest produce, to wit kahikatea trees contain-

ing 38,180 feet (Board measure) on Provisional State Forest 1605, contrary to Section 43, Forests Act, 19212. and that between March 2, 1940 i and J'une 13, 1940, at Cockeye Creek, , near Marsden, did, without lawful I authority, fell or destroy certain for- | est produce, three kahikatea and ] seven matai trees, containing 6,520 feet (Board measure) on Provisional i State Forest, 1605, was continued I yesterday, the evidence of only one I man being taken last Monday. ) I Mr Benjamin George Mannering, of Christchurch, said he was engaged by the Nemona Gold Dredging , Company to fell 30 acres of bush ahead of the dredge in 1938. Mr I Holden was dredge master' at the time. Mr McKay, manager of the Company, and the dredge master, gave him instructions. The boundaries were clear. He had cut over I the boundaries of the claim, to an ' area of 3 acres. He did not fall the i three acres in the first place;, but , was asked to go back and fell it. He I had been led to believe . that the dredge was working on a "give and I take system,” cutting all the area the I dredge could work and leaving all {that did not bear gold. Three acres ■ had been left uncut inside the boundary.

To Mr Hannan: It took three weeks to cut seven acres inside the boundary and three acres outside. Mr McKay gave him his instructions. He could not remember if Mr McKay visited him during that period. He' cut outside the boundary in other places, about the middle of the second claim.

Mr Z. lbert Holden, Westport, dredge master at the Company’s dredge from January, 1937, to July, 1939, said that he knew that about ten acres were felled at a corner with about three to four acres outside the boundary. It was thought that the ten acres was too hard for dredging and was left. Mr McKay at the time was managing-director." Both he and Mr McKay instructed the contractors as to where to cut.

To Mr Hannan: He understood that if there was dredgable ground outside the claim, that area could be cleared. Mr McKay said the men could cut as far as the dredge could go, and he suggested that the men cut to the foothills, McKay agreeing. The area might have been found to be undredgable. He and McKay

had a' disagreement, but not in regard to the ten acres.

To the Magistrate: He was aware he was going over the boundary, but thought it was permissable. Mr Hannan said that the trespass was admitted but penalty was in question. Mr Kitchingham said that he was instructed to press for double royalty. There have not been many prosecutions of the present type, on the West Coast. In a previous case a double royalty penalty had been imposed. There had been a gross ommission to look for the boundaries in the present. case. The whole area had been wasted and a subsequent loss to the people of the country. Mr Hannan said that as. far as the directors of the Company were concerned there was no deliberate trespass. The particular area was not dredged. Mr McKay said that his first information of cutting over the boundaries was when the Company was summonsed. The Forestry Department refused to accept royalty and compensation for the timber. The seven matai and three white pine trees which were felled were used for the construction of a bridge, which under mining rights was legal. Gordon McKay, managing-director, said that a contract was let to Mannering to clear the land, under the direction of the dredge master, who was to instruct him where to clear. He once went up the creek to see how the men were getting on, and found that they had left about 4?> acres of the Company’s claim uncleared. He pointed out to the dredge master that it would be necessary to clear more land in that area. The matter was discussed at a directors’ meeting and it was decided to put down bore holes, and the dredge master was ordered to make the holes to see how far back the land should be dredged. Nothing was done for a few weeks. The dredge master then discussed how far back the dredge was to work and he pointed out that it depended on the nature of the ground. The dredge master then brought the men back from further up the valley and they commenced clearing, no holes having been put down. He then found that a good deal of land had been cleared, three acres outside the boundaries. The work was done contrary to instructions and he believed that the dredge master did not know he was outside the boundary at the time. The area in question was not dredged. He was not aware of any trespass until he saw one of the rangers. Had his instructions been followed there would have been no trespass. The road was constructed over* the Company’s area except at one point. At that point kahikitea and matai was felled, the latter timber being used for a bridge. To Mr Hannan: The Company offered to pay royalty for all the timber destroyed.

To Mr Kitchingham, he said that at no time the dredge operated outside its boundaries. He did not think the boundaries were very clear, as they had been cut for four years at the time.

Mr Hannan ’asked the Magistrate when considering a penalty, to think of the witnesses’ expenses.

The Magistrate said that the double royally had been formed to deal with deliberate transgression of the law. However, this case wa's different, there being no evidence to show that it. was deliberate. The ‘'give and take” system was a very loose practice. He must impose a fine, but not the double royalty. He granted an amendment proposed by Mr Kitchingham that the conviction relate to an offence committed on one day. On the first charge, he convicted the defendant Company and imposed a fine

I of £5O, with an order that the royalties on the timber be paid, and on the second charge, a fine of £lO was imposed, and an order that the royalties on the timber felled be paid, was made. The royalties in the first case amounted to £57 5s sd, and in the second case £l2 Is 7d. The Company was ordered to pay witnesses’ expenses.

NAME SUPPRESSED On a charge of drunkenness and being found unlawfully on private premises, a young man (Mr E. B. E. Taylor), whose naive was suppressed, was convicted and fined 10s on ihe first charge, and on the second charge he was convicted and discharged. The defendant pleaded guilty to both charges. The Senior-Sergeant said thpt the defendant had attended the Ikamatua sports meeting on the day in question, and had taken a far.’ amount of liquor. He met the wife of a neighbour there, and found that her husband would be working that evening. During the evening he consumed more liquor and became_ intoxicated. He went to the neighbour’s house, where the wife was, by herself, the husband still working, and endeavoured to gain admittance. The woman in the meantime had a message sent out to a neighbour’s house, and two young men came' and removed the defendant. He was then taken into custody by Constable Honey. Mr Taylor said that the inferences drawn were, wrong. Defendant had spoken to his neighbour's wife in a neighbourly manner. He had a few too many drinks, and, forgetting that the husband was not home, he went to the house to see him on business. Defendant came of a wellknown Coast family, and his wife had applied for the suppression of his name on account of his mother. The Senior-Sergeant said that accused was a first offender, and. he made application for the suppression of the neighbour’s name. Defendant had been in custody since midnight on Saturday.

The application was granted. The Magistrate said that he did not think there had been any ulterior motive. It was just unfortunate that he went- to the house. He made an order for the suppression of defendant’s name.