A LESS COMPETITIVE INDUSTRY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22020, 1 August 1933, Page 4

A LESS COMPETITIVE INDUSTRY

Few people are aware of the fact that there is an annual market in countriee of the Southern Hemisphere for over £30,000,000 worth of softwoods, paper and pulp, yet there is not a pulp mill eouth of the line, because at present there is not a sufficiently large stand of accessible softwood forest to warrant the establishment of a pulp mill. New Zealand's greatest competitors in marketing primary products will become her best customers when N.Z. Perpetual _ Foresfa, Ltd., establishes the pulping industry in the near future. —Advt. identity of the accused. Witness could

not say whether his companion was Courtney Pledger or not, but he was of shorter and broader build than the accused. — Muriel Ellen Brown, sister of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. —Constable Excell, stationed at Roslyn, said that as a result of a complaint made to him he went with O'Callaghan in search of the missing motor cycle. He corroborated the evidence given by O'Callaghan, and said he recognised the accused. He knew the accused very well. He later went to the accused's house, when the latter .was arrested. Detective Jenvey gave evidence of having gone to the accused's house at 4 a.m. on Sunday. He arrested the accused.—Mr Stevens said that the defence would be an aliFi. The accused would state that he had not left his house except for a very short period between tea time and when he went to bed. In any case, it was not suggested that the accused had taken the motor cycle; the evidence was that he was riding on the pillion.—The magistrate said that even if he were riding on the pillion he was still liable to a charge of conversion. He was with the man who took the machine, and equally responsible. After all, only one man could drive the machine. Two men in a motor car were equally liable for conversion although only one could drive the vehicle.—The accused in evidence detailed his movements from about 7 p.m. on Saturday, July 15, until he went to bed at 11.30 p.m. He went out to buy three newspapers between 8 and 9, and later left the house to chop some wood at about 9.45. The only other occasion when he left the house was when he went with a guest to the cellar to get a drink. His wife and father and his son, aged nine years, knew that he went to bed at 11.30. A man named Wells came to his house that night to get a paper, and he did not leave until 11.20 p.m. He did not hear anyone knocking on his door at 1 a.m. because he was in bed and asleep. He said the witnesses who swore to having seen him were mistaken. He could not understand why they should say they had seen him when he was really at home. —Questioned by the chief detective concerning why so many people should be so sure that they had seen him at 11.15 p.m. when he alleged that he was at home, the said, "Whenever anything happens in Kaikorai a Pledger is blamed for it." —James Gordon Wells said he visited the accused's house on a Saturday evening about a month ago. He could not remember the date. —Mr Stevens asked Chief Detective Young what the date was supposed to be, but the chief detective refused to answer, saying that counsel had brought Wells to give evidence and he should know what he was testifying to. —Witness repeated that he -was not sure what the date was. He called to get a paner, and left the house at 11.20 p.m., being accompanied to the door by the accused. He fixed the time he left by the fact that the last tram was just going into the sheds. —Mr Stevens said it was obvious that the Saturday night referred to by witness was the night in question, but Chief Detective Young strongly objected to such a statement, and the magistrate remarked that there was nothing obvious about it all.—Ernest John Pledger gave evidence to the effect that his father was at home on the night in question. He slept in the same room as his father and his father came ( to bed not Ions; after he himself had gone to bed. Witness went to bed between 10 and 11 o'clock.—The magistrate, after reviewing the evidence, said that if the evidence of identification given by O'Callaghan and Mann had been uncorroborated the accused might be entitled to claim the benefit of a reasonable doubt, but there was also the evidence of the two Miss Browns in support of the identification. He had been greatly impressed by the, manner in which they had given their evidence and also by the fact that they were unshakeable under cross-examination. ln<~n it had to be remembered that both O oatlaghan and Constable Excell had given evidence concerning a man whom they both knew well. It might have been different if they had not been familiar with the accused. He said he believed the evidence of the prosecution, and was convinced that the accused's story was a tissue of lies. It was very regrettable that the accused should have brought a child of nine into the court to support him in his lies. The accused would be remanded in custody until Friday, when the charge of breaking and entering and theft would be preferred against him.

THEFT OF ALE. ! Albert Edward Smithers and William | Gullion were charged with the theft of I 10 bottles of ale, valued at 15s, the pro- ! perty of Michael Kean.—Both pleaded guilty, and the chief detective said there | was nothing further to add to the evidence ! that had already been given.—Mr U. U. Stevens, for Gullion, said he was a seaman, 45 years of age. He had a lot ot good discharges and nothing was known against him. He had been suffering from influenza, and after leaving his ship had stayed at the Metropolitan Hotel. He had been muddled with drink when the theft was committed, and had had no need to steal the drink, as the licensee had been prepared to give him all the drink he wanted until he found a ship.—With regard to Smithers, counsel said he was a married man with three children. Nothing was known against him beyond one appearance i" court for being drunk in charge of a car. He seemed to have been a man of good character until he started drinking recently. He, too. had been staving at the Metropolitan HotelChief Detective Young said it was a particularlv mean theft, as Mr Kean was prepared to give Gullion all the credit he wanted.—Mr Stevens: The theft would not have been committed if the man had not been drunk.—Mr Young said there was no evidence to show that the man had been drunk, but Mr Stevens said the police said that both were under the influence of liquor.—The probation oincer said that. Smithers was not making much of an effort to look after himself.—lhe magistrate said that the case was not one for probation, and each of the accused, was fined £5, in default seven days' lmprisonALLEGED ASSAULT.

The adjourned cases in which George Samuel Thomson was proceeded against by his wife on complaints for separation and maintenance orders and in addition charged with assault were continued. — Mr C. J. L. White, for the defendant, asked for an adjournment, but the application was opposed by counsel for the plaintiff (Mr G. T. Baylee), except on terms similar to those which were imposed on the defendant by the court when the cases were first adjourned on Friday. Counsel stated that on that occasion the defendant was told he must not go near his home unless accompanied by the police.

He visited his home in company with Constable Harris on the Friday afternoon, but on Saturday afternoon he paid another visit without the police. He stayed about 10 or 15 minutes, and there might have been serious trouble. Counsel, however, had arranged for a male relative of the wife's, as he thought it was as well to take precautions. He understood, however, that there was some suggestion that the defendant had been given permission by the police to visit his home. — Mr White said that on the Saturday afternoon the defendant found that he had insufficient clothes to see him through the week-end, and he rang up Constable Harris to ask him to accompany him to the house. The constable said he did not think it was necessary for him to go, and in any case he could not go, as he was just going out to a football match. Apparently the constable had assumed from the seemingly friendly atmosphere on the Friday that there could be no harm in defendant going alone, although the defendant questioned it in view of the fact that his daughter had had him arrested. Counsel thought it was foolish of Thomson to have gone, but nothing untoward had occurred, although there had been some provocation.—Asked by the magistrate why he had gone to his home knowing the conditions of the adjournment, the defendant said he needed a clean collar and a brush and comb. He had tried to get the police constable to accompany him, but Constable Harris had not thought it necessary. On the previous day Mrs Thomson had given them

both a cup of tea, and Constable Harris had thought that the members of the family were quite amicably disposed towards him, although the defendant himself doubted anj' friendly intention on the part of his daughter magistrate reminded the defendant that he had given an undertaking not to visit the house without the police, and he should not have gone.—The case was stood down till the afternoon to allow Constable Harris to be called, and the defendant was reminded that the condition of adjournment still remained. —Constable Harris said he had not thought it was necessary to accompany Thomson to the house on the Saturday afternoon after the visit on Friday. It was not convenient for him to go just when the defendant asked him to accompany him. —After hearing the evidence of the constable and also further evidence with respect to the visit of the defendant on the Saturday, the magistrate said he proposed to adjourn the charge of assault sine die just in case any further trouble should arise. With respect to the question of the complaint for separation, he did not propose to mak< ariy order. —Counsel for the plaintiff it* timated that he intended to take proceedings nevertheless, and the magistrate remarked that he was quite entitled t< do so. From what had been said, hoi* ever, counsel would ,have an idea of whai to expect.