MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 21 May 1937, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-QAY’S PROCEEDINGS,

The Magistrate’s Court opened its fortnightly sitting this morning at 10.3 J o’clock when the following cases were dealt with by Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M. . s ' Police Cases Four. offenders, charged with being found on the licensed premises of the Railway Hotel after hours, were convicted and fined 5/- and costs. Two offenders, were similarly charged, (Empire Hotel), were convicted and fined 5/- and costs. One offender (Red Lion Hotel), charged was fined 51- and costs. Frederick Curtain charged with assisting in the commission of an offence of being found on licensed premises after hours was convicted and fined 5/and costs. A Street Crossing 5 Police v. Jack Ross, failure to cross a street at right angles to the kerb. Mr Eleock appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty. Ross had just posted a letter and was crossing the roadway at an angle which would take him to the corner of the Post Office Hotel. The angle at which Ross had crossed the road was contrary to the present traffic regulations. In crossing he was run-down by a motorist. For committing a breach of the traffic regulations, Ross was fined: 10/- and costs. | Wandering Cattle ■ ‘ .--ll ■ vU A charge laid by the ctor against Edward 0. Tophey, with allowing a cow to wander unattended on the road was dismissed a warning being given to the defendant. Motorist Charges Police v. Charles Wm. Routledge, charged with driving a motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the street and further with failing to report an accident involving injury to a pedestrian caused by a", car driven by him. Mr James appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty. Sergeant Cilligan said the defendant when .approached by a police constable two days after the accident occurred, stated that he could not give a statement to the police at that time but promised he would come to the station after his work, which he failed to do. Counsel for defence stated .that his client was a man of sterling character and had not been iii any trouble before. The statement made bv the >Sergeunt were not entirely correot since the accident occurred in the centre of the road at an intersection. He submitted that a conviction without penalty would be justified since it was not a serious offence. He asked that the defendant’s name be suppressed. The Magistrate said that although the defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge it was a questionable point whether any offence had been made out. The fact that defendant’s car was equipped with celluloid screens which might impair visibility, should make the driver of such a vehicle be especially careful. The suppression of name was not acceded to. Defendant was convicted and fined £1 on each charge.

Motor Driver Fined Police v. John Brake, failure to keep motor delivery van as far as was practicable to his left of the roadway at Arthur’s Pass. No appearance of defendant who forwarded a letter pleading guilty and requesting that no witnesses be called. Sergeant Gilligan in evidence stated that Peter Tinnetti a farmer, was driving a small car which was involved in a bead on collision with tlie defendants van. Defendant, in his letter, stated that as there were women, passengers in the smaller 'car * he bad had only two courses” open' 111 td 'him either a side, on collision which might have overturned the smaller car and involved injury to those passengers, or a head on collision. The width of the road at the point of collision was 12 feet. ‘Defendant was convicted and fined £2 and costs.

Maisie Farrelly (Mr James) v. Frank Warring and Frank Parris, claim for £5. Plaintiff in evidence stated she was a married woman, residing at £e Kingti. She had taken up a position of assisting in office duties at Hokitika. Messrs Warring and Parris came to board at the Red Lion Hotel to arrange negotiations' for the sale of the hotel premises. She had been told by the proprietor to assist them in every way possible. The services rendered by her were voluntary. The two men left tlie hotel, but returned later to make an inventory of the premises, furniture, etc. Plaintiff had been asked to assist, and when two rooms had been finished, one of the defendants, Parris, stated lie would be unable to finish the work as he did not have sufficient time. He asked plaintiff to complete the work, remarking: “Of course, Airs Farrelly, you won’t be doing this for nothing.” He informed lier that arrangements would have to be made with Greymouth, and after this was done, she was told to proceed with the work. Before departing Parris and. AVarring were seen by plaintiff and Air Warring said: “You are on a fiver for doing this, Airs Farrelly.” The workwhich was very extensive, took three full days' to complete. About two or three days after the work was completed. Parris and Warring returned, and Parris asked for the list of articles which had been deleted from the inventory. There was nothing

said about any payment and one copy of the inventory was handed to Air Parris. The men took t&eir departure and later plaintiff wrote to the firm of Warring and Parris, asking for payment. Some time after, Parris returned and informed her of the negotiations for sale of the hotel “falling through.” He did not deny liability for the payment. To several letters written plaintiff received no reply, and finally the matter was placed in a solicitor’s bands. At no time was it mentioned that the payment would not be made should the deal fall through. Counsel for defence (Mr Eleock) asked Mrs Farrelly if she gave defendant other assistance -on behalf of Air AlcIntosh. She admitted that £0 was a generous payment for the work. Counsel submitted that an arrangement for the payment was only to be made if the sale was successfully negotiated. Airs Farrelly denied any knowledge of any such arrangement. To Air James—Payment was only suggested when it was cjecided that she would do the whole work. Miss E. Knight, clerk and typist employed by Park and Alurdoch at the time the claim was placed in the solicitor’s hands, gave evidence stating she had typed and posted a letter demanding immediate payment to Alessrs Parris and Warring. ,J. J. Mclntosh, proprietor of the Rod Lion Hotel stated Warring and Parris had arrived at hotel and introduced themselves as hotel brokers. It was not by any invitation of his they had arrived at the hotel, and were only there on the prospect of executing, a sale. He said he would on no account give, them any commission out of the sale. Warring and Parris informed him they had a client, and would need an inventory for that client. The sale of the hotel and furniture was at a nett price, and the stock at- valuation. Defendants’ evidence had been-taken at Christchurch. It stated that an inventory was necessary, and that it had been' arranged with Airs Farrelly that she would be paid £0 only if the deal went through. Defendants claimed they were being blackmailed over the payment. The Magistrate said that any doubts which he had in the matter had been dissolved by the attitude adopted by the defendants in their evidence. Judgment for tlie amount claimed together with court costs werq allowed plaintiff.