MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 24 November 1942, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREYMOUTH SITTING. Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M., presided over a sitting of the Magistrate s Court at Greymouth yesterday. Thomas Ivor Brown, charged with being; in possession of an unregistered dog, was fined 10s, with 10s costs. Arthur Pickering, of Dobson, shotfirer, was charged that on September 23 at Wallsend mine, being a person firing a shot, he failed to satisfy himself that the requirements of the regulations were fulfilled before firing the shot.- William Burnett and James Patterson were charged with aiding and abetting him in the commission of the offence. Charles Hunter, Inspector of Mines. Greymouth, stated that in visiting the place in the Wallsend mine, where Patterson and Burnett had been working, he came on a shot which had been fired, and was a contravention of the regulations. There were still eighteen inches of hole left in the coal whn the shot had been Tired).; Pickering admitted warning the men before firing the shot that he did not think it would do anv good. In the matter of shot-firing a responsibility rested on the miners themselves apart from that of the shotfirer. In this. case, the men had bored a hole, knowing; there was little chance of- it doing anv good, and the firer had. fired it in contravention of the regulations. After the hole was bored the place could have been prepared so that the shot was a success. Very stringent regulations regardng shot-firing had been drawn up after the 1926 explosion. The Magistrate said that he did not feel,justified m making anv distinction between the men. Each of the accused would be fined £2 with costs 10s. William Henry Elliott, single, of South Beach, was charged that on or about May 22, 1942, he made a written statement to the Inspector of Police at Greymouth, alleging contrary to fact and without genuine belief, that an offence had been committed. A similar charge was laid regarding a written statement made to the Commissioner of Police, Wellington, on or about June 10, 1942. Chief Detective H. E. Knight, who conducted the case for the police, stated that Elliott, aged 54, was unemployed. He lived in a small hut on his own property. Two youths living nearby were carrying on a business for their widowed mother, and since their father’s death Elliott had frequented the place, becoming especially friendly with the younger of the youths. He had gained a local reputation, and it was taken that his attentions were not to the boy’s benefit. A young man, a friend of the family, had tried to part Elliott from the youths, taking them in his company whenever possible. Through the younger of the youths, accused was informed of what was taking place. An anonymous letter, sent to the Inspector of Police on or about May 22, made references to suburban hotels, and hotels trading with youths. A watch was kept on the hotels and the allegations were proved to be false. While the watch was being kept a letter was sent to the Commissioner of Police, purporting to be from a mother concerned for the welfare of her sons. A letter had alsobeen sent to the Minister of Supplies, alleging that the young man who was taking the youths about was using petrol for a .purpose other than that for which it was intended. A further

letter to the Inspector of Police stated that if a watch was kept on one of the hotels, the offenders in the recent burglaries in the district would be found Chief Detective Knight said that he interviewed accused, who denied anv knowledge of the letters. A search revealed a note book with writing identical to that used in the letters. Further, the last note had evidently been torn from the book. Accused then admitted writing the letters. His main reason had evidently been his feelings regarding the Attempt being made to nart him from the boys. He knew nothing about the misuse of petrol and was merely suspicious about the youths going with the man to hotels. Mr W. D. Taylor, who appeared for Elliott, asked the Court to disregard the sinister inference that had been drawn regarding the association of

tiie youth with accused. H# was interested in the youth and wished to withdraw his remarks regarding the hotelkeepers and apologise to them. His past had been satisfactory. He would ask for the suppression of accused’s name. Chief Detective Knight said he would agree that Elliott’s reputation was merely local. He had not previously had any complaints regarding him.

Mr Taylor said that it was going too far to bring gossip into the mattei\ The Magistrate said that accused must have had a strong motive in making the charges which he now withdrew. The matter called for some explanation on his part. In view of his age and previous good record he would be given the benefit of the doubt, but the matter could not be treated lightly. A fine of £2 with costs 10s, was imposed on each charge. Stephen Francis Llewellyn Neary, a labourer, was charged that he was found drunk in a public place, High Street, on November 19, 1942; that on November 19, 1942, he was deemed to be a rogue and a vagabond in that he was found by night without lawful excuse on the premises of the Old People’s Home, Greymouth; that no November 18. 1942, at Kumara, he did steal four and a-half pounds of gelignite, one box of detonators and a quantity of fuse, of a total value of £1 8s 3d, the propertv of Kumara Alluvials, Ltd.; and that he was found in possession of gelignite and detonators without lawful excuse. He pleaded guilty to the first and fourth charges, and not guilty to the others. The charge of being a rogue and vagabond was dismissed for want of evidence. i

Constable. Smith stated that at 12.15 a.m. on November 19, he found accused in a room at the Old People’s Home. He was sitting in a chair drunk. There was gelignite pn the table beside him. The Matron stated that she had been awakened by accused coming into her room and throwing gelignite on her bed. He had asked for a bed. Thp discussion had been continued in another room, accused insisting on a bed and refusing to leave the premises. Accused had alarmed girl members of the staff by breaking off pieces of gelignite and throwing them on to the fire. He was arrested in High Street for drunkenness. He had eight sticks of gelignite, a coil of fuse, and a box of detonators in his possession, and had stated he had charge of the gelignite and intended to return it later, but had been drunk.

From the dock, accused stated that he was pretty drunk at the time. Sidney Francis Gibson, foreman; Kumara Alluvials Ltd., stated that accused came to him on November 18 for a job. He applied at the workings beyond Kumara, and was given the opportunity of starting when he liked. He had no effects with him. He was shown into a hut, the?property of the company, and given permission to live there and use the utensils. The hut was usually locked. It was of four rooms, the two rear rooms being used for tools and goods belonging to the company. There was a .quantity of explosives in a cupboard in one of the rooms. Accused was not informed that it was there, and had no authority or right to remove any of it. The rooms were not locked.

Neary stated that after Gibson left him hd went out for stores. Going to see if there were other utensils, he had seen the explosives, and did not fancy sleeping with them so close at hand. He h_ad gone to see about tea and sugar and ended up drunk in Greymouth. The Magistrate said he could not accept accused’s explanation. On the charge of drunkenness h P would be convicted and discharged. On the charge of having explosives in his possession without lawful excuse, and on the charge of theft, he would be convicted and. sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, the sentences to be cumulative. An order would ha made for the return of the property to its owner. The Magistrate added that he felt bound to say that it was an extraordinary nrocedure to show a man of this sort into a house where explosives were kept. In a claim for maintenance bv Matilda Phoebus Clank (Mr W. D. Taylor). against William Henry Clark (Mi’ J. W. Hannan), maintenance of -£3 a week was allowed, payments to commence on November 30.' £3 3s solicitor’s fee was al slowed.