MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Matamata Record, Volume XIII, Issue 1110, 31 March 1930, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

MATAMATA SITTING. The- bi-monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court took place in Matamata on Friday, Mr. S. L. Paterson, being on the Bench. Stop: Look Out For The Engine! Maurice George Neames pleaded V guilty to having failed to keep a sharp look-out when going over a railway crossing near Matamata. Mr. Hutchison, for defendant, said : ffrat aceused was used to the cross- - ing, but on this occasion his attention was taken up by some children, and, in avoiding the children, he failed .to notice the train. De- - fendant did not actually cross on to .the rails, but before he could stop his r. truck the engine caught the front of it and turned it round. Defendant was convicted and ordc erecL tq pay court costs, 10s. . Moneys Missing. A youth, whose name was suppressed, appeared to answer a charge of failing-to account for two sums of money to his,employers. The police stated that the youth had learned his lesson and had made Mr. Hutchison, for defendant, pleaded guilty. He stated the youth was only paid 35s per week and he frequently had. up to £2O of his employer’s money in his possession. He ;>had" become;'careless, and on balancing up had found himself short. Instead of advising .his parents he had : noticed that if a receipt was muddled in the office it \ was torn out and t "thrown away. He then took the line of least resistance, and followed suit, ' intending to make good the amounts Hater on. "One of the amounts had . - actually been paid in when Nemesis ! overtook" him. The Magistrate discharged ac-' i cused without penalty, and ordered • •' the suppression of his name; Though he had no power to prevent the publication of the name of the - employers," he" hoped the press would do what they could to prevent people < even guessing at accused’s name. Maintenance. Hector CCampbell, charged with being in arrears with maintenance pleaded not guilty through Mr. G. G. ..." “Bell. Mr. Bell stated the order had been made' while defendant was away. He ‘ had endeavoured to secure an adjustment without success, and so for the "last nine months had paid nothing, so that he could lay his facts before the court. The" Magistrate remarked that the order had expired, as both boys were - now over sixteen years of age, up to • which time" he had to contribute to " their support. The case would be ■dismissed.