MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 6 April 1943, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREYMOUTH SITTING. Mr G G. Chisholm’ S.M., presided over a sitting of the Magistrates Court at Greymouth yesterday. Allan McPhie, a shot-firer in the Dobson Mine, was charged that on December 15 he failed to make an inspection with a locked safety lamp for the presence of inflammable gas in a working place after a shot had been fired and find that place safe in all respects. Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty. James McArthur, Inspector of Mines, said that as a result of an inspection of the Dobson Mme by the workers’ inspectors and underviewer, a working place where a shot had been fired was found by one of the workers’ inspectors to be gassy. An inquiry was made into the inspection by the shot-firer, who, admitted that, having noticed that a brattice on the ventilation system had been damaged as a result of the shot, he had put down his safety lamp to make repairs and had failed to carry it the last ten feet into the working place. He had made the inspection but without the lamp. To the Magistrate, Mr McArthur said that there had in part been an inspection for that last ten. feet, other than an inspection for fire damp. , , , Mr Hannan said that the regulations provided that there must be an inspection before a shot was fired to see that there was no gas, though no specific reference was made to the use of a safety lamp in the inspection after the shot was fired. The inspection before the shot was fired had been made and there was no gas. In this case the shot had blown away part of a brattice which was an unusual thing, and McPhie had set. down his lamp to repair it. McPhie was one of the oldest shot-firers in the mine.

To the Magistrate, Mr Hannan said that the repair of the brattice was essential. McArthur also said that the repair of the brattice was essential. The Magistrate said that the case was rather different from others which had come before him in which no inspection had been made at all. Everything appeared to be in order to the spot where the shot-firer had stopped to make the repairs. Nevertheless, everything relating to the safety of the workers must be scrupulously safeguarded, and it seemed significant that a complaint, had been made by a workers’ representative. He would fine the defendant £5, with costs 10s. Lawrence Harold Muir, charged with being in possession of an unlicensed radio set, was fined 10s with costs 10s. Mr A. ,Sumner> Radio Inspector, aftei.” loutlining the circumstances in which the charge had been brought, said that a license had now been obtained. Robert Naisbitt (Mr J. W. Hannan) charged, with the disobedience of a maintenance order in respect of his two chlidren, the arrears amounting to £l9 10s, made an application for variation of the order. Defendant was ordered to pay £5 arrears at the rate of 5s a week, in default one month’s imprisonment; and the original order was varied to provide for payment of 5s a week in respect of each child. A first offender, charged with being on licensed premises after hours, was fined 5s with costs 10s and witness’s expenses 7s 6d. A case brought under the Emergency Regulations in which an hotel licensee was charged with supplying liquor, and two men were charged with consuming liquor, during prohibited hours, was adjourned for a month on the application of Mr. J. W. Hannan, who for the defendants, pleaded not guilty. Mr. Hannan said that the licensee had Jnvited the two men to have supper with him and during the supper had supplied them with a drink, but at no cost to them. Under common law it was held that a licensee, could do this. The question as to whether he could do it under the regulations was at present before the Court of Appeal. He thought the case should be adjourned till a decision was announced. If that decision was. that the licensee did not now have the right, pleas of guilty would be entered. Senior Sergeant Bonisch said that the case was identical with that./ before the Court of Appeal. The adjournment was granted.