CITY COURT

Southland Times, Issue 22768, 19 December 1935, Page 9

CITY COURT

YESTERDAY’S SITTING A LENGTHY LIST Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M., was occupied all day yesterday at a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court. Prosper Butler Harper, a sawmill hand, of Tokanui, pleaded not guilty to two charges of obtaining moneys by false representation. The amounts were £25 11/- and £9 8/10, allegedly obtained upon the execution of contracts for the delivery of fencing posts. Mr J. C. Prain represented defendant and Detective-Sergeant Thompson prosecuted. Detective-Sergeant Thompson said that defendant had been employed cutting fencing posts for the Southland Farmers’ Co-operative Association, and it was alleged that he had informed the association that two certain orders had been fulfilled with the result that he was paid for his work. It was subsequently ascertained that the posts had not been delivered. Joseph Pullar, produce manager for the Southland Farmers’ Co-operative Association at Invercargill, said that accused had been given several orders to supply fencing posts to clients of the firm. One of these orders was for a consignment of posts to Robert Miller Pullar, of Pukerau. He was given an order for cash against certain contracts, only, however, on the representation that the posts had been delivered. Accused told witness that the posts had been consigned to Robert Pullar, and accordingly was given a cheque for the amount owing. Witness later discovered that the posts had not been delivered in certain cases, and investigations disclosed that no provision had been made by accused for delivery of the posts. Accused was in the hospital at the time and when interviewed there said he would have the posts delivered as soon as possible. The contract was not completed, and later witness met accused and suggested that he should “work the money owing out" in his firm’s wool store. Witness paid the money to accused only on the representation that the posts had been delivered. To Mr Prain: Accused had told him that he would complete the contract as soon as he was discharged from hospital. Witness had had no trouble with him before and his work had been very satisfactory. No prosecution would have been considered had accused completed the contract or worked in the wool store. Witness did not desire to make trouble at all. Robert Miller Pullar, of Pukerau, attested that he ordered a truck of fencing posts, but had not received them, although ’he had been debited with them. For the defence Mr Prain said that accused had not set out to defraud the people concerned. He had been advanced certain moneys in advance of contracts performed and this in itself was sufficient evidence that he was regarded as trustworthy. It was quite clear that he thought the consignments referred to had been railed. Unfortunately ill-health had intervened at the time and he was prevented from superintending the despatch of the posts. At the present time he was in steady work at Tokanui, the first time since he had recovered from his indisposition. Prosper Butler Harper, sawmill hand, of Tokanui, gave evidence that he understood the consignments in question had been delivered while he was in hospital. He had no intention whatever of defrauding the Farmers’ Cooperative Association. The Magistrate said he did not approve of the method of going to the police to recover a civil liability. He was satisfied the accused had no guilty intent of defrauding the Farmers’ Cooperative Association and the information would be dismissed. Branding of Liquor. The police proceeded against R. T. Marshall, of Stoke, Nelson, cider manufacturer, on a charge of delivering in the no-license area of Invercargill intoxicating liquor not properly branded. Mr T. R. Pryde appeared for defendant and contended that the name “Sunbeam Cider” on the cases was sufficient to indicate that the contents came under the heading of intoxicating liquor. The Act specified that cider was an intoxicating liquor. Sergeant Abel contended that the words, “This case contains liquor,” should be marked on the cases. Decision was reserved.

Negligent Driving. Jessie Erskine Watson (Mr N. L. Watson) pleaded not guilty to a charge of negligent driving. The charge arose out of an accident at the intersection of Jed and Esk streets, where a boy named Wilson Trewick was struck and received a broken left arm. Wilson Archibald Trewick said that on October 30 he was cycling along Jed street in the company of another boy. Near the intersection of Esk street he saw a motor car being driven by Miss Watson, the defendant, about to cross Jed street. Witness realized that there was a possibility of a collision and he turned his bicycle, but was struck by the car, which in his opinion was travelling at about 30 miles an hour. The car swerved to the right. Had it kept a straight course it' was probable that the accident would not have occurred. To Mr Watson: The car was travelling on its correct side of the road. He speeded up to try to avoid a collision. He did not always enjoy good health. Thomas R. Stewart, who was cycling with Trewick, said he thought the car was travelling fast near the middle of the road on its correct side. The right hand wheel of the car hit the back wheel of Trewick’s bicycle. After the car struck the bicycle it swerved and turned round. To Mr Watson: When witness saw the car, he turned to the left as he felt he could not get across the intersection before the car. Robert lan Stewart said he saw the accident. The boy Trewick was caught under the car. He could not determine what was the speed of the car. Jessie Erskine Watson, the defendant, said that she proceeded down Esk street and when at the intersection of Jed and Esk streets saw the boys on bicycles. She did not see them until she was right on the intersection, and immediately pulled to the right to avoid a collision. It was a bad corner for visibility. The car hit the bicycle ridden by the boy Trewick and knocked the boy over. She was travelling at about 15 miles an hour and as far as she knew she sounded the horn. She did all she possibly could to avoid an accident. After viewing the scene of the accident the Magistrate said he did not consider the corner such a dangerous one. Defendant should have been able to see at least 40 feet from the corner. He was satisfied she had become confused when she saw the two boys on the cycles, and had she been travelling at the speed she should have been, 10 to 15 miles an hour, she would have been able to pull up her bar. The true cause of the accident was the speed at which she was driving. Defendant was convicted and ordered •to pay costs 16/- and witness’s expenses

Lorry Driver Fined. Hudson Lamont Hillis (Mr G. J. Reed) pleaded not guilty to a charge of negligent driving on the night of September 21, when a lorry backed into a window in Strang’s furniture emporium and caused damage amounting to £2l. . William Henry Woodward said that at 10.45 p.m. on September 21 he was driving a car from Don street into Kelvin street. He heard a crash and noticed a truck backing out from under a verandah surrounding Strang’s furniture emporium. He had an idea that the truck he saw was trying to make a getaway and he kept it in view as it raced away across Esk street, but owing to the foggy night he did not get a clear view of it. He informed the police of the accident. Next day he saw a truck in a garage. This truck was similar, he thought, to the truck he had seen the previous evening. John Bell, hairdresser, said that at about 10.50 p.m. on the night of the smash he was in the vicinity of Strang’s, and after hearing a crash he saw a motor truck travelling past Esk street. He did not see what the number on the truck was. Next day he saw a similar truck in a local garage. Constable Brown said he inspected a truck at a garage the day after the accident and found pieces of glass and wood in it. The glass and wood com- | pared with the window and moulding around Strang’s window. Thomas Thompson, mechanic in Russell’s garage, said he received instructions- from the defendant to recover a truck from a ditch in Oteramika road. He did so and when the truck was brought in Constable Brown inspected it and took charge of some broken glass. The wind-screen on the truck was smashed. He did not see any broken wood about. t William Strang, manager of Strang’s furniture emporium, attested that the cost of replacing the damaged window was £2l. Constable Matheson said he interviewed the defendant and secured a statement from him regarding the movements of his truck from 10.30 o’clock on the night of the window smash. Witness was informed that defendant’s truck was not in Kelvin street that night. Defendant had been driving the truck that night and had run into a ditch in Oteramika road. He was emphatic on the point that he -was not near Strang’s that night. Hudson Lamont Hillis, the defendant, a carrier of Invercargill, said he owned a motor delivery truck, and on the night of the smash he was at his home in Crinan street. His wife and a friend named Kelly, from Mokotua, were also there. At about half-past ten he took his truck to take Kelly home, and about three or four miles out the truck ran into a ditch. They walked into the city and Kelly engaged a taxi to take him home. The vehicle was left in the ditch for the night. Next day the truck was towed into the garage. Nothing had been removed from the truck. To Sergeant Abel: When Constable Matheson interviewed him he would not give his companion’s name. After the accident defendant went home and Kelly walked into the town to get a taxi. He was dodging a cow when he ran into the ditch. He could not say who would put the broken glass and wood on the lorry. Eric Frederick Kelly, cheesemaker, of Mokotua, said he visited Hillis’s home on the evening of the accident. He detailed his and Hillis’s movements from 5 p.m. to the time of the accident at Oteramika road. After that he walked into town to get a taxi. They spent the evening at Hillis’s home. Mrs Catherine Hillis, wife of defendant, said that her husband and the previous witness spent the evening at their home. They had had no drinks that night. John Kissell, taxi-driver, said he knew the witness Kelly, who had engaged him to take him to Mokotua following an accident at Oteramika road. Kelly had engaged him on other occasions. The Magistrate said the case resolved itself into the question of how the wood and glass were found on defendant’s truck. It had been proved that the piece of wood came from Strang’s window; and he was asked to believe that the constable or some other person had put it there. That meant that the constable had deliberately committed perjury, but he would not believe that he had. Defendant was convicted and ordered to pay costs £1 2/-, and witnesses’ expenses £1 12/-.

Miscellaneous Cases. Andrew Allan McKenzie, a prohibited person, was fined £1 and costs 10/-, on a charge of procuring liquor during the currency of his order. Edward G. Connor for failing to go round a dome while crossing Tay street in a car was fined 5/- and costs 10/-. Fergus Blackmore pleaded guilty to not stopping his car near the left edge of the road, and was fined 5/- and costs 10/-. Frank Donovan, for riding a bicycle on a footpath was fined 3/- and costs 12/-. Matthew Kirkpatrick for failing to drive round a traffic dome was fined 10/- and costs 12/-. Thomas McLeod for failing to keep to the left edge of the road was fined 5/- and costs 12/-. Thomas A. Morrison for riding a motor-cycle without having an efficient silencer on his machine was convicted and discharged. Leslie Tressider, similarly charged, was fined 5/- and costs 10/-. John W. Sellars for failing to keep to the left while driving a car was fined 5/- and costs 12/-. George Colvin for failing to produce a heavy traffic license was convicted and fined £1 and costs 10/-. James Douglas similarly charged, was fined 30/- and costs 10/-. Sly-grog Selling. William George Liddell (Mr J. C. Prain) pleaded not guilty to keeping liquor for sale in the no-license district of Invercargill. Sergeant Abel said the police had been watching defendant’s house in Fox street and as the result of a raid had seized 40 bottles of beer. Constable Parkes said he had Liddell’s residence under observation for some time. On November 22 he saw men enter and leave the premises, coming and going in taxis. One man left the premises carrying a sugar sack of bottles. The sack appeared to be very heavy. He heard other men placing bottles at the back of a car after leaving defendant’s house. On November 25 several men visited the house, generally by taxi; on November 27, there were further visits by various men; on December 7 further visits were detailed, and on December 10, accompanied by Sergeant Abel and Constable Matheson, a raid was made when 47 bottles of beer were found on the property. No empties were discovered and no beer was found in the house. Constable Matheson said that in company with Constable Parkes he kept a watch in some trees in Kelvin road and saw men going and coming from defendant’s house. On December 10 he was one of a party which searched the house and grounds of defendant. Witness searched the rear of the section, following a track which led to an open comer, where behind some bushes he found two sugar sacks, and a box containing 16 bottles of beer. In answer to a question defendant said, “You need not look any further. That is all you will find.” To Mr Prain: The beer was hidden

in the hedge—not a very ingenious way of hiding the bottles. Sergeant Abel, in evidence, said he had the place under observation on divers dates and saw men coming and going from Liddell’s place. On the night of the raid they found nothing in the house, but in the back section discovered 40 bottles of beer in sacks and a case. In his evidence the defendant said that an December 10 the police discovered 40 bottles of beer at the back of his section. The beer was put there to keep it cool. Some relatives were to stay with him during the show, and the beer was procured for the occasion. After the beer was seized by the police defendant was left with none, but he secured another “five” the following day. To Sergeant Abel: The beer was not kept for sale. The Magistrate commented that the present was about the third case of the kind in six months. Defendant was fined £lO and costs 10/-, in default one month’s imprisonment. He was given a month to pay.