CITY POLICE COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21242, 24 January 1931, Page 3

CITY POLICE COURT.

Friday, January 23. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.)

UNLIQHTED BICYCLE. On a charge of riding a bicycle without a light, Joseph George Park was fined ss, with costa. FAILURE TO SUPPLY RETURN. Robert Shepherd Frank Inder, who did not appear, was charged with having failed to furnish a return of land.—Mr W. D. Taylor, who appeared for the prosecution, stated that the charged referred to the income tax year ended March 31, 1930. The defendant had been the owner of land since 1917, and had made no returns, having paid on default assessments. He had not replied to letters from the department.—The defendant was fined 40s, ■with court costs (10s), and solicitor’s fee (£3 3s). MOTORISTS’ OFFENCES. John Walter Becker was fined 20s, with costs, for passing a stationary tramcar. Robert Forsyth Lloyd was fined £5, with costs (10s). on a charged of dangerous driving, and was convicted on a charge of riding a motor cycle without a license. William George Hewitt, Roderick M'Culloch, and Gordon Oswald Reinke were fined 5s each, with costs, on charges relating to unlighted motor cars. Roy Ernest Wilhurst was fined 20s, with costs (12s), for driving a motor car without a license, and 5s for not having lights on the vehicle. Robert Julius Olsen was convicted and discharged on a chare of riding a motor cycle without a license. ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. A man, the suppression of whose name was ordered by the magistrate, pleaded guilty to a charge of having attempted to commit suicide in Central Otago. —Senior Sergeant Quartermain stated that the accused, who had been drinking heavily for some time, had cut his throat. The police had incurred expenses amounting to £3 ,7s 6d, and the Hospital expenses amounted to £6 6s.—A man in court undertook to look after the accuged.—The accused was convicted and admitted to probation for six months, the police expenses to be paid forthwith and the Hospital expenses within such time as the probation officer directed. He was also made the subject of a prohibition order during his term of probation. ELECTRICIAN FINED. Robert Stephen Butcher, for whom Mr Hartstouge appeared, was charged on four informations with having failed to give notice of the commencement of electric wiring work. The case for the prosecution was conducted by Mr W. D. Taylor, who stated that the defendant wag an electrician residing at Mosgiel, and had taken out a license under the Electric Wirerhen’s Act, 1927. He had_ failed to give notice to the_ local electrical supply authority (the City Corporation) before commencing wiring work in four cases. The speaker said he understood that the defendant had been spoken to again and again about giving notice before commencing work. The proceedings were taken more in the nature of a warning, but in view of the warnings which the defendant had got more than a nominal penalty was asked for.—Mr Hartstonge stated that the defendant was now out of business, and he submitted that a nominal penalty would meet the case,—His Worship said it was important that notice should be given so that an inspection could be made. —Mr Taylor stated that these were the first charges laid in the Dunedin district.— The defendant was fined 20s, with costs (10s), on two charges, and was ordered to pay costs (10s) on the other two. A NEIGHBOUR’S QUARREL. Helen Guyton, David Guyton, Andrew Guyton, and John Guyton, for whom Mr E. J. Anderson appeared, were charged with having behaved in a disorderly manner at Burkes on December 15. All the defendants pleaded not guilty.— Thomas Moloney a farmer, residing at Burkes, stated that about 9 p.m. on December 15 he was leading two horses to a paddock. He stopped to speak to a brother, and at that stage David Guyton appeared on the scene and spoke to him. Witness told Guyton that he did not want to have anything to say to him. Guyton asked witness why he had hit his (Guyton’s) brother, and witness replied that he had not hit him. John Guyton then came out on the road, and used filthy language to witness. David Guyton was the first to strike at witness, who backed away and let the horses go. Witness pushed David Guyton off twice, but he got up again and continued to come at witness. Andrew Guyton came out next, and he was followed by Mrs Guyton and Cyril Guyton. Cyril had a garden hoe in his hands, and threatened to split witness’s head open. Witness ran about 40 yards down the road, followed closely by John Guyton, with Andrew Guyton some distance behind. A lot of foul language was used by the defendants. John Guyton was still trying to hit witness when he stopped. Andrew Guyton had two stones in one hand and one in the other. Witness’s brother John was there, but he took no part in the proceedings. Mrs Guyton threw several stones at witness. One stone struck him on the cheek under the left eye. Witness was of the opinion that all the defendants were sober except David and Cyril Guyton, who were under the influence of drink. Witness had warned two of the Guytons off his farm because they were under the influence of liquor, and he put another off on another occasion, but did not use unnecessary force in doing so.—John Moloney, brother of the previous witness, stated that he had gone to Burkes with David Guyton that evening. He could see that there was going to be trouble, but he did not take particular notice of what happened. The witness was ordered to stand down by the magistrate. —Constable Mackenzie gave evidence that Moloney complained to him on the morning of December 16. He then had a cut on the cheek below the left eye. So far as he knew Moloney was an inoffensive man, who had never interfered with anyone except one of the Guytons, who had been put off hie property about six months ago. The Guytons had not baen in trouble like this before. —Mr Anderson submitted that it was futile to go on with the case against four in view of the evidence givens—His Worship decided to hear further . evidence. The defence was a complete denial of the statements made by the complainant.—David Guyton gave evidence that some months ago hie brother Ernest arrived home injured. His nose was cut, and one eye was swollen. He stated that he had been to Moloney s farm to get some paint brushes belonging to him.. On December 15 witness went out on the road to see if Moloney would apologise for striking his brother. When he spoke to Moloney he received a reply in vile language, and Moloney knocked him down. Witness had not used an obscene word. After he had been struck twice his brother Jack appeared on the scene. Witness did not hear any obscene language except what was used by Moloney. Andrew Guyton and Cyril Guyton took no part in the trouble. # Witness considered that he was justified in asking for an apology six months after his brother Ernest had been injured—Evidence on similar lines was given by John Guyton, Andrew, and Helen Guyton, who stated that the only stones thrown by the female defendant were thrown at the horses, who had their heads over Guytons e fence His Worship, who reviewed the evidence at length, said he thought the disturbance was engineered by the Guytons. ibe charge against Mrs Guyton would be dismissed as trivial. As regards the others it was a neighbours’ dispute, and it was not suggested that they had been m. trouble before. He would adjourn the ease for 12 months on condition- that the male defendants pay the cost of the summons and be of good behaviour towards Thomas Moloney in the meantime, it the conditions were not observed the case would be brought before the court again.