MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 19898, 17 June 1926, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

POLICE AND BY-LAW CASES. YESTERDAY’S BUSINESS. At a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr G. Cruickshank, SM., the following cases were dealt with:— John Marshall Prentice, for driving a motor car after dark without lights, was convicted and fined 10/- with costs 7/-. For similar offences James Smith Robbie and Herbert Jeffrey Sutton were convicted and fined 5/- costs and 10/- with 7/- costs respectively. William George McCartney, who pleaded guilty to a breach of the traffic regulations and with riding a motor cycle without a license to do so was convicted and fined 10/- with 7/- costs on the first charge and fined 7/. costs on 'the remaining charge. Stewart Brown, who did not appear, was convicted and fined £1 with 7/- costs for riding a motor cycle after dark without lights. SEAMAN DISCHARGED. Charles Samuel Grosser, who appeared before the court on Monday last on a charge of unlawful desertion from the sjs. Ruapehu at Bluff on June 8, again appeared yesterday morning. Senior-Sergeant Scandrett stated that the man had been ordered to pay the cost of his passage back to ship, but the captain, had filled his place and his services were no longer required. The Magistrate therefore discharged Grosser. BREACH OF BY-LAW. The town engineer (Mr T. O. Fox) proceeded against Scandrett and Sons, Ltd., for a breach of the by-laws. Mr C. S. Longuet appeared for plaintiff and Mr G. Broughton for defendant. Mr Longuet stated that contrary to the borough by-laws a house had been erected at South Invercargill within two feet of the boundary of the section instead of at a distance of four feet. No brick wall was built between the sections. The defence contended that a clerical error had been made when the plans were submitted for a building permit. After hearing legal argument his Worship reserved his decision. ASSAULT CHARGE. James Abernethy Christopher Fisher (Mr Gordon Reed) proceeded again Donald Dixon (Mr Brian Hewat) for assault. Mr Reed, in opening the case, stated that it was an unfortunate affair. Fisher was a surfaceman on the railways. Allegations had been made against Dixon for the theft of certain monies and that had been the commencement of hostilities. On February 6 while Fisher was working at Timpany’s station Dixon, a farm labourer, used threatening language to him. On another occasion when plaintiff went to visit Mrs Dixon, mother of defendant, who was very ill, he was assaulted by Dixon. James Abernethy Christopher Fisher stated that defendant lived about a mile from his place. On February 6 Dixon went up to him arid wanted to fight him. The train was due to arrive where he was working and witness would not fight. He visited Dixon’s mother on one occasion and Dixon struck him. That evening he was milking the cows at Pettigrew’s, his father-in-law, when defendant called him out to the road and attacked him in a cowardly manner. Dixon had gone a mile and a half out of his way to visit witness. Cross-examined by Mr Hewat, witness denied that he had accused defendant of taking money from Pettigrew’s. He understood that a complaint had been made to the police in the matter. Jessie McFarlane Fisher, wife of plaintiff, and Norman Pettigrew, corroborated the evidence given by plaintiff. Mr Hewat, for the defence, said ’the case arose out of a long-standing quarrel, defendant considering himself the agrieved party. The evidence which had been given did not point to premeditated assault but merely to a neighbour’s quarrel. He suggested that the case should be dismissed as trifling. Donald Dixon stated that on the first occasion referred to by plaintiff he had called Fisher over to him and asked him if he had been spreading the tale that he had been drunk at Bluff some time previous. Fisher had started to take off his coat to fight but then refused to fight in working hours. Witness admitted striking plaintiff at his father’s house but said he thought it was “cheek” on his part to come over to the house after making such allegations against one of the family. On the third occasion when he visited Pettigrew’s, Fisher struck him first. The Magistrate, in summing up, said he was inclined to think that defendant was in the wrong. Defendant was fined £1 with 25/- costs. SEPARATION SOUGHT. „ Eva Alice Dorothy Taylor (Mr C. Prain) applied for a separation order from Cyrus Henry Taylor, window-cleaner, of Invercargill, who was represented by Mr Gordon Reed, on the grounds of persistent cruelty. The complainant in evidence stated that she had been married for six years and had one child five years old. There had been continual trouble in the house and on occasions her husband had threatened to take her life. She had become terrified by his actions and had been compelled to take action. The reason she had never complained to anyone was because she thought her story would not be believed. Her husband had also threatened her boy. At different times there had been differences over religion and her husband had refused to allow her to go to church. Since her marriage she had been out to work. To Mr Reed: The trouble had not resulted as a consequence of her parents interfering and wishing her to induce her husband to become a member of the Plymouth Brethren. She had been willing to go to his church with him but he had not accepted. William Stewart, registered medical practitioner, deposed that when complainant consulted him last April she was in b highly-strung nervous condition and had mentioned that her husband had been illtreating her. Defendant, in giving his version of the affair, denied that there had been any jlltreatment of his wife. He had no suspicion that there was anything wrong with his wife until he got a letter from a firm of Christchurch solicitors. The incidents which had been related by complainant had never occurred. The trouble had really started over their different religions. His wife was of a nervous temperament. To Mr Prain: There had been minor differences between them but at no time had there been any cruelty. The defence was proceeding to call further evidence when the Magistrate stated that the petition would be summarily dismissed as there was not sufficient proof that the alleged acts of cruelty had ever taken place.