POLICE COURT

Southland Times, Issue 25310, 13 June 1935, Page 5

POLICE COURT

YESTERDAY’S SITTING A LENGTHY LIST A lengthy list of cases, several of them defended, caused Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., to sit all day yesterday in the City Police Court. For permitting a chimney to catch fire, Andrew James Campbell, was ordered to pay Court costs 10/-. Raymond Alexander Gilchrist, pleading guilty to a charge of permitting an unregistered motor-cycle to be used, was fined 10/- and Court costs 10/-. Traffic Inspector’s Cases. Proceeded against by the city traffic inspector (Mr E. Stopford), William E. Bennett (Ryal Bush), on a charge of breaking the parking regulations, was fined 8/-, and Court costs 12/-. James G. Crosbie (Wyndham), for failing to give way to a tramcar and failing to stop when the vehicle was damaged, was convicted and ordered to pay costs 10/- on the first charge, and fined £3 and, costs 10/- on the second charge. * Robert Dossor (Timaru), who did not appear, was fined £2 and costs 10/-, for crossing an intersection in a motorcar at a greater speed than 15 miles an hour. For riding a motor-cycle at night without sufficient lights and without a license, Ellis Grant was convicted and discharged on the first charge and fined 5/-, costs 10/-, on the second charge. Daniel M. Kelly (Ettrick), charged with speeding in a motor-car on the North Road, wrote in pleading guilty. He was convicted and fined £2, Court costs 12/-. John W. Martin (Ohai), for driving past a tramcar discharging passengers, was fined £llO/-, costs 12/-. Robert Mclntosh, charged with speeding over an intersection in a motor-car, was fined 10/-, costs 10/-. William Todd (Pukemaori R.D.), for failing to give way to traffic on the right, was convicted and ordered to pay costs 12/-, and witnesses’ expenses 5/-. County Prosecution. Proceeded against by the counties’ traffic inspector (Mr P. C. Watson), John A. Beck (Wairio), for driving a motor-car with insufficient lights was fined 10/i, costs 12/-. For driving a heavy motor vehicle at a speed exceeding that prescribed for its class, James A. Brown (Lochiel), who pleaded guilty, was fined £l, costs 12/-. William Townley (Stirling), who wrote in pleading guilty to a charge of cutting a corner, was fined £l, costs 12/-. Unemployment Levy Defaults. Proceeded against by the officer-in-charge of the Labour Department (Mr P. C. Weenink) on a charge of failing to pay the August and November, 1934, instalments of the unemployment levy, to which he had previously pleaded guilty, a local resident was fined £l, Court costs 10/-, on the first charge, and was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within three months on the second charge. Another resident, who had also previously pleaded guilty to failing to pay the November, 1934, instalment, was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within *two months. A third offender for failing to pay the August and Novemb’er instalments of the unemployment levy was convicted and discharged on the first charge, and convicted and fined £3, costs 11/-, on the second charge. Breach of Award. Thomas R. Taylor (Mr S. M. Macalister), a garage proprietor, who was proceeded against by the Inspector of Awards (Mr P. C. Weenink), pleaded guilty to making false entries in a wages and overtime book. A charge of failing to keep a proper wages and overtime book was withdrawn. The inspector also claimed for a penalty of £25 for a breach of the award. Mr Weenink said the defendant was in business in Invercargill and Dunedin. In 1931 he hired a station attendant and paid him £3. There was an award wage of £4 15/-, which was reduced by the general order to £4 2/10 a week. The attendant worked 104], hours a week, which deprived another man of work. The wages and time book were kept as a means of the Labour Department checking the wages and awards were the only protection working people had. The department always took a stern view of such cases, which struck at the root of the legislation protecting working people.

Mr Macalister said that Mr Weenink had put an unduly severe construction on the matter: The entry had been made three and a-half years ago without reference to any award, which Taylor thought had expired. The employee had come to Taylor asking for the position at a new petrol station at £2 10/a week, but Taylor replied that that wage was too small, and he would pay him £3 a week. Later, if the station paid, Taylor said he would pay the employee a substantial wage. Also, the employee did nothing but serve petrol, and it was just a question if he came under the award. The arrears of wages and overtime had been paid to the employee. The defendant was fined £5, costs 13/,-, and judgment was given on the penalty claim for £5. Sequel To Collision. As the result of a collision Philip John Alley (Mr J. G. Imlay) pleaded not guilty to a charge of failing to give way to traffic on his right at an intersection. The defendant brought a prosecution against Richard Thomas Caird (Mr G. Cruickshanks), who was the other party in the collision, alleging that Caird did not have his motor-cycle under proper control. After hearing evidence in both cases, wmeh were taken in conjunction, his Worship dismissed the charge against the defendant Alley. He said he was doubtful regarding the charge against Caird and the defendant was entitled to the doubt. The charge was accordingly dismissed. Obscene Language Alleged.

John Davies, of Tuatapere, storekeeper, for whom Mr R. B. Bannerman, of Gore, appeared, pleaded not guilty to a charge of using obscene language on the Tuatapere railway station on November 7. He elected to be dealt with summarily. Joseph James Lawson, a picture proprietor, said that about 2.30 on May 7 he went to. the Tuatapere railway station on business. Leaving his lorry he went to the office, where he saw the defendant. Witness was about six feet from defendant, who handed him a ticket, saying: “Here are your films for and left the office. Witness left' the office. Defendant was standing on the platform and witness remarked to him that there was no necessity to have left the films at the railway station, and that they could have been left at the hall. Defendant replied that witness had played him a dirty, low-down trick and used the language complained of. Defendant also said that witness, had tried to do him harm in his business, and had alleged that witness used underhand methods in opposition to him. Defendant had used further obscene language. At first defendant was more deliberate, but later he became angry and, he would say, lost his head.,

At first his language was not so J but at the latter part it was very loud. Witness walked away and left defendant. He had had no trouble with defendant until this occasion. To Mr Bannerman: He and the. defendant had had no personal business troubles. He had not tried to obtam a lease of the Orepuki Hall after defendant had commenced showing pictures there. He had made inquiries regarding the hall before and after defendant was showing there. He had instructed a solicitor to write to the defendant asking for the insertion of an advertisement containing an. apology for the language and the statements. After the defendant had failed to apologize and he had learned that the Railway Department was not taking up the matter he laid an information.

Mr Bannerman cross-examined witness regarding the film ‘‘Disraeli, which witness admitted showing without the knowledge of the film company. Witness said the only trouble had been in connection with the film hire. He intended to bring an action for slander against the defendant. He denied using obscene language to the defendant. Cyril Walter Cottam, stationmaster at Tuatapere, said he could not distinguish what Lawson said, but he distinctly heard the obsence language. Corroborative evidence was given by lan Garnett Gordon, a railway clerk at Tuatapere, and Lawrence Leslie Robertson, a porter at the Tuatapere railway station. Mr Bannerman said he desired to submit that there was no case to answer because Lawson’s evidence was not supported by the other witnesses. Lawson was obviously a partisan witness. As a matter of fact there was actually a doubt as to who had used the language.

His Worship said he was satisfied that whatever language was used Davies had used it. Mr Bannerman said there was a reasonable doubt as to the language used by defendant, if there was any language used at all.

The defendant, in evidence, denied using the language complained of. Lawson had accused him of putting his “pot on” over the showing of the film “Disraeli.” Lawson also said the defendant had done the same thing himself over three films which were named, but this witness denied. He could not understand why the witnesses had come there and given evidence; He had nothing to fear and nothing to hide.

Robert-Scott, of Tuatapere, a farmer, said he spoke to Lawson on the station, but Lawson had not replied and afterwards said that he had not seen witness. He could hear the voices of the two men and the stationmaster had asked who was talking. From inside witness could hear no obscene language and he was certain the stationmaster could not have heard any either. The Magistrate said he was quite satisfied that Lawson and Davies had “words” on the railway station. Some words had been spoken and they were spoken in loud voices. He was satisfied that the railway employees were too far away to distinguish what was said. Regarding the slander action that had been mentioned, the Court would not allow itself to be used to collect evidence. The charge would be dismissed. 'Liquor Selling Charges. Pleas of not guilty were entered by Thomas William Dillon (Mr J. R. Hanan) to charges of keeping liquor for sale and selling liquor in a no-license area. Constable W. C. Harper said he went to Dillon’s residence and asked if there was any chance of buying two bottles of beer. Dillon replied that he did not sell beer, but there was a man inside who might “take him on.” Dillon came back a moment later and witness gave him 3/-. After some delay Dillon handed him two bottles of beer and said he would know him next time he came back. To Mr Hanan: He asked for Dillon and the man said he was Dillon.

Sergeant Abel said he accompanied Constable Harper to Dillon’s house. He waited outside while the constable went in and then came out with two bottles of beer. To Mr Hanan: He was standing well back on the road and he could not swear that the man who opened the door was Dillon. From the witness box the defendant said he knew nothing of the matter. He did not sell beer on any night. A man named Scurr had a room in the house and frequently answered the door. Scurr kept liquor in the house. Elizabeth Dillon, the wife of the defendant, said he could recollect nobody coming to the door on the night in question. Mr Hanan said the constable could have been mistaken and it would be dangerous to convict in such circumstances.

Evidence on the second charge was given by Sergeant Abel, who said he executed a search warrant on May 11. In the sitting room were Edward Leen and Alexander Inglis and a five-gallon jar of beer. The men were drunk and Dillon was well “under the influence.” Witness asked in the kitchen if there was any more liquor and defendant said there was some in the shed. In a wooden chest were 62 bottles similar to the bottles produced. Dillon said they belonged to Ted Lask and he had not time to deliver it. Dillon said the bottles contained beer, but they contained wheat wine with 28.8 per cent, of proof spirit. To Mr Hanan: Dillon said the liquor was to go into the country. Constable R. E. J. Brydon, who also went to the house, gave corroborative evidence.

Edward Lask said he gave Dillon about 78 bottles of wheat wine in a chest to deliver to Wrights Bush. The instructions were to hold it until further instructions were given. Dillon had no authority to dispose of it, but only to drink two or three bottles. The Magistrate dismissed the second charge. He said he did not believe Dillon’s evidence. There was no reason why the constable should come along and give false evidence. The defendant would be convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon on the other charge. Leslie Spencer Scurr (Mr Eustace Russell) pleaded not guilty to a charge of selling liquor on April 27 in a nolicense area.

Evidence was given by Constable Harper that on April 27 he went to Dillon’s house in company with Sergeant Abel. Witness asked Dillon if he remembered him and Dillon said he did. Witness asked for two bottles of beer, but Dillon replied that he had none. He told' him, however, that he could have a drink then at sixpence a glass. Dillon took him inside to the back and called defendant out and informed him that witness wanted a drink. Defendant went to the middle of the house and came back with a drink. Witness bought another glass of beer. He said he would call back next morning for the two bottles of beer and then left.

To Mr Russell: Dillon did not say that the room which they entered was Scurr’s room. Dillon just went to a door and beckoned another man, whom he knew to be Scurr. He had not seen Scurr from April 27 till that morning, but he recognized him.

Sergeant Abel gave corroborative evidence.

Hector McLauchlan, a storeman at Whittingham’s brewery at Waikiwi, produced orders for liquor given by Scurr from February 2 to May 30. The total was 57 gallons.

To Mr Russell: The orders usually come on a Saturday. Sometimes they came on a Friday.. They were really a weekly supply.

The defendant, from the box, said he

had sold no beer at all. He had never seen the constable before that day. If anybody came to buy beer that night he had not sold it. To Senior-Sergeant Kelly: He and Dillon were the only men in the house. He did not remember that night particularly. • . . The Magistrate said the circumstances in this case were clearer. The constable had gone into a lighted room and seen the defendant. .The defendant was fined'’£s, costs £1 4/-.