MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Kaikoura Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 23, 21 March 1938, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

(Before Mr 11. A. Young, S.M.) WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1938. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for the amounts claimed, with costs, in the following civil cases:— D. M. Jack v. J. J. Corrie, £lO 16/7; Montague and Sullivan v. E. Burt, £lB 5/: R. L. Withers (Mr J. W. Anderson) v. W. C. Norton, £6 10/; J. Davidson v. C. Napier, £5 9/3; D. M. Jack v. H. Weston, £ll 19/3; Estate F. H. Flower (Mr Anderson) v. W. Poharama, £l5 2/1; same v. H. Jacobs, £l3 7/7; H. W. D. Rogers v J. Grattan, £3 12/5; J. Davidson v. J. Reardon, £3. A DISPUTED CLAIM. Kaikoura Freight Services claimed from D. M. Jack, the sum of £224 7/7. Defendant in evidence, claimed that the statement of claim was incorrect. He admitted that £166 15/10 was due, and was prepared to pay that amount into Court. By consent it was agreed that the ease stand down, and that the £166 15/10 be paid. This was done, and the case was adjourned until the May sitting to adjust the balance. JUDGMENT SUMMONS CASES. I. Roberts was ordered to pay H. Osmond £4 19/6 forthwith, in default 14 days in Kaikoura gaol. In the case Montague and Sullivan v R, Still, claim £23, the Magistrate decided not to make an order. A. McGregor was ordered to pay W. Dransfield £7 4/8 forthwith, in default nine days’ imprisonment. Mr J. W. Anderson appeared for judgment creditor. His Worship declined to make orders in the cases of Beath and Co., v R. A. Wilkins, £7 1/6, and J. Davidson v. R. Shadbolt. BREACH OF CARRIER’S LICENSE. The Kaikoura Freight Service was charged with carrying goods by lorry outside the restricted area. Mr D. E. Hopwood, Highways Board Inspector, for the prosecution, said the department did not look on this as a serious breach, but such infringement of the licensing regulations must be stopped. On this occasion limo was carried. Defendant, who pleaded guilty, said his client had ordered three tons of coke, and had asked the firm to pick up two tons of lime. A fine of 10/ was inflicted, with costs 10/. PERMITTING COWS TO WANDER. R. Strahl was charged with permitting cattle to be at large in Torquay streeet contrary to the by-laws; also with “permitting” cattle to be in the prohibited area. Mr Anderson appeared for the County Council. Defendant pleaded not guilty, stating that someone had left the paddock gate open. His son was driving the cows back at the time. His Worship said the defence was that defendant had not “permitted’ the cattle to be at large. “You seem to be an honest man, Mr Strahl,” said the Magistrate. “The case will be dismissed.”

PREACH OF PROHIBITION ORDERS J. W. Boyd was charged with a breach of his prohibition order,. Mr J. W. Anderson appeared for defendant, and pleaded guilty. His Worship said he would give defendant another chance and ordered him to come up for sentence within six months. J. Hamilton was similarly charged, also with procuring liquor. He was fined £2 on each charge, with costs £l, and allowed one month in which to pay. FAILURE to COMPLY WITH ORDER M. Starkey was charged with failing to comply with a maintenance order, and was convicted and sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment, warrant to be suspended if arrears are paid. DRIVING WITHOUT LICENSE. H. R. Bovd was charged with driving a motor vehicle without having a license. Inspector Hopwood said the defendant had been refused a license on the ground 'of incompetence. Defendant was fined £5 and ordered to pay costs 10/. D? Alanson, charged with using a car without a certificate of fitness, did not appear, and was fined 5/ and costs 10/. C. Hornby, on a similar charge, was fined 10/, and ordered to pay costs 10/. THEFT OF A GROPER. Rex Rayner, charged with stealing a groper belonging to C. Nicholls, was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence within six months and to pay the cost of the fish. 8/. BREACH OF SLAUGHTERHOUSE REGULATIONS. W. J. Harnett was charged with fail ing to keep his slaughterhouse in a clean state; also with feeding pigs on uncooked offal; and with failing to keep utensils clean. Air B. Grant, Principal Inspector of the Department of Agriculture, Canterburr District, who prosecuted, said that he had visited the slaughterhousee in company with the local Stock Inspector. and detailed the condition of the premises. The meat store was clean. Defendant, who pleaded guilty, explained that it was the custom at the slaughterhouse to clean all utensils each day. The Inspector had called about 2.30. Defendant had given instructions to his men to either burn or bury all offal. He had been ill at the time, ami one of his men was suffering from an injury to his eye. Instructions had been given to keep the premises clean, but that dav they had been short-handed. Lt was without his knowleedge that unboild offal had been fed to the pigs. The men cleaned the utensils each day.

Defendant was convicted, and fined £5 on the offal charge, 5/ in regard to unclean and £1 on the unclean floor charge.

ALLEGED DISORDERLY CONDUCT. W. A. Ferry, charged with behaving in a disorderly manner in a public, place, pleaded not guilty. Air Anderson appeared for the defendant All witnesses were ordered out of Court. A. C. Bateman, an engineer, residing at Kahautara, said he was in a Kaikoura hotel standing in a corner near the bar, three other men were standing there. Witness listened to two mon speaking about the War and said it was about time the war was over. Ferry threw an empty glass which struck the wall, leaving marks. Ferry came to him later and apologised. Ferry would be about 16 to 18 feet away. To Air Anderson: Witness said he had had a “spot” or two but was sober. He said the war had been over 20 years. Witness was looking for a “bite.” A “spot.” was a glass of whisky. He had not been ordered out of the Commercial Hotel previously but had a few words with the proprietor who refused to serve- him. He was in a state to know whether Ferry threw the glass. He did not see the glass thrown but saw Ferry with his arm raised Ferry had not spoken to him. Witness passed the remark. He had been dismissed from his work for drinking, or for absense. Witness was trying to toll the truth to the best of his ability. The glass smashed on the wall, the pieces falling to the floor. The glass struck about six inches above his head. He had not been accosted for drunkenness that dav. He was not sure that Ferry threw the glass. To the Magistrate: Ho said the war had been over 20 years. Ho could not say why he chipped in, seeing that he had two other men with him. He was looking for a “bite” not for trouble. He admitted “chipping in” but his remarks did not warrant a glass being thrown at him. To Constable McLennan: Ferry had come over and shook hands with him after the occurrence. Hubert Gilling, barman, said he saw defendant and others in the bar, three being together at one end and three at. the other. He heard remarks about the war, but could not say what was said. He could not see a glass thrown, but heard one strike the wall and saw the pieces near whore Bateman was standing. He saw Bateman walk up to Fernand apologise to him and also shake, hands.

To Air Anderson: Witness, .said h A was pouring out beer and he had his back to Ferry and his friends. He heard the breaking of a glass. Ferry said: “That was an accident and I will pay for the glass.” Witness knew Bateman as a customer, but he could not say he was so drunk as to be re fused further liquor. Witness had served Bateman with about four beers. In five years he had only seen Ferry at the hotel on two occasions. To Constable AleLennan: Ferry would he about seven yards away. Ferry said it was an accident and ho would pay for the glass. He could not say how the glass got broken as he had his back turned. Defendant and his friends were quite sober. T<> Air Anderson: Bateman apologised to Ferry, the latter not moving from his coiner. Bateman had another drink after that. Constable McLennan said he had interviewed Ferry and asked for a statement, ,bul did not get one then. T.ater a statement was made by Ferry, but ho would not sign it. To Mr Anderson: Ferry made the statement; witneess had not written it. Defendant said he remembered the occasion. He was talking to two soldier friends he had known at Gallipoli, ft was the first time he had met one, Taylor, since leaving Gallipoli. They had gone into the hotel and were talking oxer old times, and had two drinks. The throe of them were conversing quietly, not taking notice of an.vone else. He did not throw the glass at Bateman. They were talking of the old jam-tin bombs made by them at the war. Ho was demonstrating with a glass how the bombs were hold, when the glass flow out of his hand. He could not have hit Bateman had he wanted to do so as another man was in front of him. Bateman later camo over and apologised to him. Witness did not take any notice of him. As an accident had happened witness paid for the broken glass. Witneess said he had been in Kaikoura for twenty years and had never previously boon in any trouble. When he went to the Court office Constable McLennan wrote out a statement which witness refused tt> sign It was- the constable’s statement, not the witness’s. To Constable McLennan: He would not sign the statement; it was not dictated by him. He had not seen a chip out of tin* wall. Definitely it was the constable’s statement, not his. Witness

did not see any glass thrown, the glass, slipped. Bateman was telling deliberate lies when he said he saw the glass thrown. Witness was demonstraing how bombs were thrown. J. A. J. Mackie said he was with defendant, and a man named Taylor, who had been at Gallipoli with him. War experiences were being related. He saw Bateman in the ehotel that morning, but, he had not seen a glass thrown. Ferry was giving a demonstration of the method of throwing bombs, when the glass slipped and fell on the counter over the bar. Bateman was about six yards away. lie heard Ferry say he would pay for the glass as there had been an accident. Witness took little notice of Bateman, but later noticed ho was under the influence of liquor. Ferry did not move from his position, but Bateman came over to them. Witness did not hear what was said. Ho knew Ferrv, but had seldom seen him in a hotel. To Constable McLennan: He did not talk the matter over with Ferry; the matter was discussed at Air Anderson’s office. He. thought Bateeman was sitting at the time, but had not noticed a mark on the wall. This closed the evidence. Air Anderson submitted that the case should be dismissed as the only evidence was that of Bateman, who said ho, saw a hand uplifted. Bateman had admitted that he had been under the influence of liquor and had apologised to defendant later. On the other hand defendant’s evidence was corroborated by Gilling and Alackle. Ferry was a respected and reputable citizen, and was not known to drink. He asked that the case be dismissed. His Worship said he was an old soldier and remembered some of the incidents. There was a good deal in what defendant had said, and he had apparently given a good demonstration of throwing bombs, and it looked as if the occasion warranted it. He had quite enjoyed listening to the evidence, and he thought it might have been a good thing if the demonstration had been a little more realistic under the circumstances. The case would be dismissed. CLAIM FOR FIREWOOD. Harry Norton proceeded against Wi and Mere Poharama for removing firewood .belonging to him from the Native Development block at Alangamaunn. Air Anderson appeared for plaintiff.

Alere Poharama explained the position as she understood it, stating that she was grazing the property and had paid her sister (Airs Nortonj the rent. Witness was protecting her interests in stopping the wood being carted away. She had proceeded to Wellington and had interviewed the Registrar, having shown him the receipts for the rent paid. J. J. Alackle had been appointed supervisor of the development scheme. The wood came from the 24 acres leased by witness. The 24 acres were not included in thee 500 acre block She had paid Mrs Norton two years’ rent. J. J. Alackle, farmer, residing on a property adjoining the property in question, said twelve months’ ago he had been appointed supervisor of the Native Development block. There were 28 Natives involved in the block, the whole area being taken over by Act of Parliament, Judge Harvey being President of the Board, from whom witness received his instructions. The idea was to clear and develop the block in the interests of the Natives. Afere Poharama had no rights, but was allowed by the Board to remain on the property. The employees of the Board had cut the wood, about three cords. Witness knew the wood was gradually disappearing but could not say who took it. He had seen Smith at the site on two occasions, when defendant prevented the wood being taken away. Norton had sent Smith up for- the wood. Afere Poharama was on the land at the pleasure of the Board, and had no right to pay rent to anyone but the Board. Afrs Poharama lived on the- 24 acres, and was there at the pleasure of the Board. The wood came from the area grazed by Afere Poharama, she holding the grazing rights only. Doyle built the. house, which was later occupied by Afere Poharama., who had walked in the front door and Doyle had to get out. Witness informed the Board that ho had given permission to take the wood. There had been several rows about the wood. It had been removed to near Poharama’s house. Afere Poharama had paid £5 rent. The block was using Native labour for clearing and developing the block, and the property had .been fenced. Previously the property had been of little value, but the intention was to improve it to permit the Natives making a living ou of it. Any of the workers on the block had been entitled to take wood.

Mrs H. Norton, sister of Mere Poharaina, said nil the land was under the development scheme. Mere Poharama was on the 24 acres, which went under the scheme, but she had not been put off the land. Mere had paid £5 rent to witness for the grazing rights, this being two years’ rent. The 24 acres of land ,belonged to two families. The property was not previously fenced. The land belonged to witness, subject to grazing rights. Her husband cut the wood and sledged it down. Witness had instructed Smith to cart the wood to Beach Road. There were about three cords. To Mrs Poharama: The rent was paid on October 24, £5, for two years’ rent. His Worship: It is for the Judge of the Court to put you off, Mrs Poharama. ” Mere: “He won’t put me off. I’m one of the original owners.” Mr Anderson agreed that it was really a matter for"the Board. More said the wood had been used in her house. It was her wood, and she had burnt it. Sometimes her husband was not well, and the wood was handy for a. woman. “The wood is gone—it is burned,” said More. Continuing she said the wood was worth 16/ for the lot —it was ngaio and whitey wood, not manuka. Some of the wood was out in the Court yard and came off the property. Mr Mackie said this was not the truth. The gate had been put in for the purpose of taking in fertiliser. 11. Norton said it took him a week to cut the wood and two days to bring it down. There were 3| cords. He reckoned his labour was worth 10/ a day. It was eight miles from his house to where the wood was stacked. Smith was not allowed to got the wood. His Worship said it was evident that Mrs Poharama had only the grazing rights. The wood must be permitted to be taken off the land, the royalty to go to the Development Board. Defendant had no right to the timber, and Mr Mackie had the right to sell it for the benefit of the Development Board. Defendant had no right' to interfere with anyone taking wood from the 24 acres, but Mi* Mackie could give permission to take the wood and collect any royalty he chose Judgment would be given for £5, with costs £2 14/. “I’ll take the gaol for it,” said Mere. “I’ll not pay a penny!”