MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 1 February 1944, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

YESTERDAY'S GREYMOUTH SITTING Mr G G. Chisholm,) S.M., presided at a sitting of the Magistrate s Court at Greymouth yesterday, vvhen Senior Sergeant G. Holt appeared for the police. rxi _ „ . On the information of the Borough Traffic Inspector (Mr H. Lane), J. H. Bradford, Kotuku, was convicted and fined 5s and 12s costs, and Charles Sadler, was convicted and ordered to pay costs 10s only, for driving motor vehicles on Mawhera Quay. Greymouth on December 11, 1943, without warrants of fitness. Three men found on licensed premises at Dunollie after hours on January 9, at 11.45 a.m., were convicted and fined 10s with 10s costs. Five men found after hours on licensed premises at Greymouth were convicted under the regulations .and were each fined the minimum £2 with costs, 10s and 12s in one case. One defendant, a pensioner, appeared and was allowed a month in. which to pay his ’fine. Margaret Elizabeth Jane Steel (Mr A. M. Jamieson) pleaded guilty to a charge of being the licensee ot the Golden Eagle Hotel, she did supply liquor during such time as the premises were required to be closed. The Senior Sergeant said that Sergeant R. C. Mcßobie and Constable Hickling visited the Golden Eagle Hotel on the evening of December 3 and found five men (previously dealt with) in the bar being served with liquor by the barman, John Jones. Defendant was m another part of the house. She had no previous convictions and kept a fairly good house. Mr Jamieson said defendant had a young family and was .absent putting them to bed at the time of the police visit and did not know of the trade going on. The information was laid under the Licensing Act. A conviction and fine of £2 with 10s costs was entered. The barman, Jbhn Jones, on whose behalf Mr Jamieson also entered a plea of guilty to a charge of supplying liquor was convicted and fined £lO and 10s costs, the. charge being made under the Licensing Act. CONSTABLE THREATENED

“It seems that this man wants to be shown his place,” commented the Magistrate when imposing sentence on John Newton, of Runanga, who did not appear to answer a charge of using threatening language to Constable W. J. Theyers in a public place, the Rapahoe Hall, when a dance was in progress. The Senior Sergeant said that the qharge arose out of a case brought before the Court last, week when .a man, Hatch, was charged with disorderly conduct at Rapahoe. Constable Theyers had arrested Hatch and on returning to the hall w.as accosted by Newton who challenged him to fight in the dance hall, and I in the presence of the general public, i “This sort of thing cannot be allowied,” he continued, “especially in a district where there was only one policeman present. Constable Theyers s.ai,d that on returning to the hall he was approached in a bombastic manner ed,- who demanded .to know what became of Hatch. Witness told him that it was not his business. Accused quietened down and witness said that he had locked Hatch up.. Newton then resumed his bombastic attitude and threatened witness, stating that he was interfering too much with the young men in the district. If he didn’t stop he would have .accused to deal with. Accused was not drunk but had had some liquor. On being warned some time later of witness’s intention to make a charge he said that if that was done he would have more to say about it next time they met. "If . accused had been under the influence of liquor there may have been some extenuation,” said the Magistrate, “but he repeated his threats at a later date and he requires to be shown his place. He will be convicted and fined £3, with 10s costs. INCOME TAX NEGLECTED

Two charges of failing to furnish to the Commissioner of Taxes a return of income derived by him during the year were preferred against Reginald Norman May, a baker, of Kumara. The charges covered the years 1942 and 1943, and Mr W. D. Taylor, on behalf of defendant, entered a plea of guilty on both charges. Mr F. A. Kitchingham, representing the Commissioner of Taxes, said that the defendant was engaged in business in a small way and was required to file a return of income. His business was investigated by an inspector of the Department and he was asked to furnish a return. However, the request was neglected, and ihe information was brought to make him see that he had to file a return each year. It was .also desired, to point out to other business firms that irresnectvie of whether they are running at a profit or a loss, they must make a return. Agreeing to the facts, Mr Taylor said accused travelled over the d’strict in the course of his work. He was a married man with five children and worked anything from 12 to 14 hours a day. It was admitted that he failed io meet his obligations but he had no time and counsel, judging from his client’s books, doubted his ability to do so. The books were now in the hands of a public accountant who would look after the assessment.

“There is really no excuse for a man not filing a return,’’ commented the Magistrate, “especially in this case where an inspector has examined the books and warned accused. It does not matter what he makes, a return must be filed. On the charge concerning the 1942 income he jviH be fined the minimum £2 with costs 10s, but in the matter of the returns for last year he will be convicted and fined £5 with 10s costs and solicitor’s fee £1 Is, a total of £9 Is.”