CITY POLICE COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18601, 8 July 1922, Page 15

CITY POLICE COURT

Feidat, July 7. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.I Passengers by Tramcar. —A whose name is suppressed from publication, was brought up for travelling on a tramcar ana attempting to avoid payment of his tare. He expressed regret, and promised that the offence would not occur again.—iiie .Magistrate remarked that it would be expensive if' the offence was repeated, and fined the man 30s and costs (7s). ( Infected 1 Sheep. Archibald . Baxter pleaded guilty , to a charge; of failing to apply to register a brand for his sheep; with failing to make a return of his sheep to the inspector; and with exporing 108 lambs for sale infected with lice.—Mr Forrester, who prosecuted, stated that the lambs had been exposed for sale at the yards, and it had been noticed that they were infected with lioe. and were not earmarked. It was later found that defendant had not made the return of sheep, as required by him. Mr Forrester mentioned that the department had great difficulty in getting returns. —Defendant said that he had only been farming for eight months, and was not aware that he had to make a return.—Ho was fined £3 on the first charge and 20s on each of the other charges, the fines carrying costs (7s) in each case. Charles Taylor was charged with having, on May 31, Exhibited at Burnside Saleyards 39 lambs infected with lice, and was fined 20s and colts (11s)., Maintenance.—Alexander Anderson, who did not appear, was charged with disobeying an order to contribute towards the support of his wife, at the rate of 30s a week. He was- in arrear £ls 12s 3d.—Mr Hanlon appeared for complainant.—Defendant w'aa sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and ordered to pay costs (£1 Is). A case_ against a woman of disobeying a maintenance order, the arrears being £8 15s, was brought before the court. —Sub-inspector Eccles stated that he had made inquiries from the education authorities, and he was satisfied that it was a case that should be dismissed.—The case was dismissed, the publication of the name of defendant being prohibited. Railway Crossings.—James Fox was charged with having’, on May 5, attempted to cross a railway lino with a motor lorry when the line was not clear. —Mr Hanlon appeared for defendant. —David M'Curdy, gave evidence, stating that he was driving an engine from Dunedin to Port Chalmers, and when near Frederick street his mate (the fireman) called to him to stop. He had sounded his whistle on approaching the crossing. When his mate called to him to stop he shut off steam and applied the Westinghouse brake, and when he stopped the lorry was over on _ his (witness’s) side of the line. The train was going about 20 miles an hour. The driver of the lorry could have hoard the whistle of the engine. He could not see the engine unless he was 15 or 20 yards from the line, owing to a stack of timber. The lorry was carried about 20 yards over the side -of the crossing.—To Mr Hanlon: It was a dangerous crossing. At Hanover street there was a signalman. It was difficult to see the railway line by anyone approaching it. —Constable Parker produced a statement by defendant to tho effect that if he had stopped the engine would have struck the front of the lorry, and he had tried to speed up.—The fireman, who had been on the engine) stated that the lorry was about two lorry lengths from the crossing,' and the engine about seven or eight lengths from s ' it. when he saw the lorry.—Mr Hanlon contended that defendant could not be_ convicted for attempting to cross the line when the line was not clear, because at the time the line was clear. The by-law was unreasonable, bad, and absurd. It would not hold water.—Williarq Casey, called hy Mr Hanlon, said that it was an exceedingly dangerous crossing. That was caused by tho presence of timber,'and flom the fact that a short blast of thi whistle of tho engine was given when about three chains back. The blast was such that a man, to hear'it, would have to be almost listening for it.— Mr Bundle said that was an accident. The crossing wns_ a bad one, and it was not until the driver of a vehicle was practically on tho railway line that he knew an engine was approaching. The meaning of the words as to the line being clear was doubtful. The railwayman know that the line was clear—clear for a distance. But what was clear for ofie crossing might not be clear for another. He (the magistrate) thought that anyone must find a difficulty as to what was clear with respect to this crossing. It depended on what distance the lorry was off the crossing. Ho was satisfied that in tho present case defendant had used all the care he was able to use under the circumstances. He did not think it was necessary to decide whether _ the by-law was unreasonable. He would dismiss the case. Theft of a_ Box of Tea.—Two young men named William Stanley Carlyle and Andrew William Stott were charged, on remand, with stealing a 551 b box of ten, valued at £s,_ the property of Lanes, Ltd! —Chief-detective Bishop appeared for the prosecution, and Mr A. C. Hanlon for the accused.—Alexander Buckley Pearson said he was foreman in charge of Lane’s store and works, Carroll street. In June there were 40 chests of tea in tho store, and later one was gone. Accused wore working there.—Detective Lean stated that on July 1 he had interviewed the accused and received statements which they signed These were (by Stott) to tho effect that the accused were employed by complainants. In May be had taken a box of tea, and, with Carlyle, had carried it away. It had been offered for sale for £3, and it had been bought for that sum, the purchaser not knowing it was stolen. Carlyle had assisted him (Stott) to wrap tho box of tea up in scrim. _ Carlyle’s statement agreed wit!’ this, but in it he denied having taken part in the wrapping up of the box.—The two accused pleaded giulty and were committed for sentence, bail being allowed each in £IOO and one surety of £IOO or two of £SO each.