BLUFF COURT

Southland Times, Issue 20618, 17 October 1928, Page 12

BLUFF COURT

YESTERDAY’S SITTING. POLICE AND CIVIL CASES.! (From Our Correspondent.) At a sitting of the Magistrate’s Couit at Bluff yesterday before Mr G. Cruickshank S.M., the following cases were dealt with: Civil Business. Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in the following undefended civil cases: W. H. Johnston and Co. v. John Braxton for £8 1/8, costs 17/-; James Grenville v. Robert Karitiana for £4 15/11, costs 11/6; William P. Rae v. Joseph Bradshaw for £5 16/6,-costs 15/-; A. H. King v. Arthur Calder for £9 19/1, costs 15/-. Appearing on judgment summonses Roy Sheppard (£l2 5/6), Michael Joseph O’Leary (£l2 5/6) and Walter McQuarrie (£l5 I*9/-),. all sued by G. W. Riley, tailor, of Dunedin, were released from their obligations. Riley secured orders for suits before the three men left for the mutton bird islands. Riley had not handed over the suite and would not do so until payment was made. The earnings of ail three men were very small since judgment was secured against them. Police Cases. Walter McQuarrie, for failing to attend military parades was convicted and fined £3, costs 10/-. On a similar charge James Joseph Shannon was convicted and fined 10/- without costs. His mother, a widow, dependent upon him, appeared for him. For being on licensed premises after hours .on October 3 during the Bluff gala, John Hughes and Gordon Leslie Leith were convicted and fined 10/- with costs in the former case 10/- and in the latter 12/-. On a similar charge Alexander McKenzie was convicted and discharged. William Henry Cunningham, who did not appear, was fined £l, costs 10/-. Misappropriation Of Moneys. A voung married man, whose name was suppressed, was charged with the theft of £5, the property of the New Zealand Government. Accused, who was represented by Mr J. G. Imlay entered a plea of guilty and elected to be dealt with summarily. Counsel for the defence said accused had been in the employ of the Railway Department and in the course of his duties had to collect various sums of money round the town. In one case £5 had been collected, for which he had issued a receipt, and as he was short of cash at the time he had borrowed the money with every intention of repaying it. The fact that he had issued a receipt showed that he meant to pay it baek. He had since lost his position through it and Mr Imlay asked that probation should be granted his client and that his name be suppressed. He had had 12 years service with the Department and had a wife and one child. Detective-Sergeant Hewitt said accused had since refunded the money. The facte, as set out by counsel, were quite correct. He mentioned, however, that the receipt issued bore no date and the receipt book had not been returned to the office, but had been taken home by accused and produced when inquiries were set afoot. The Magistrate said it was hard to understand a man, especially a married man, playing the fool like that. Counsel said he understood accused had been drinking a good deal. He was convicted and released on probation for 12 .months and the name was suppressed.