Otautau MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 22962, 7 August 1936, Page 4

Otautau MAGISTRATE’S COURT

MONTHLY SITTING (Before Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M.) Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the case, T. M. Burgess v. A. Foster, for £1 16/2, costs 8/~. For having no motor driver’s licence and for driving an unregistered motor truck, L. Coombes was ordered to pay 12/- costs on each charge. The following were fined for having no motor-driver’s licence: Richard Hishon, 10/- and costs 12/-; P. Grant, 10/- and costs 10/-; Thomas Richard McKenzie, 10/- and costs 12/-; Eric Fowle, 10/-, costs 12/-; W. H. Clark, 10/- and costs 12/-; Antonio Valli, 10/and costs 12/-. Arthur Bulman pleaded guilty to being in possession of an unlicensed wireless set and was fined 5/-, costs 12/-. Daniel Joseph Brick was charged by the county traffic inspector, Mr P. C. Watson, with failing to stop when the signal was given, and was convicted and fined £2 10/-, Court costs £1 3/-. For operating an unlicensed motor cycle, W. J. Egan, jun., was fined 10/-, costs 12/-. Hector McDonald was fined £l, costs 10/-, for operating a motor lorry without a heavy traffic licence. James Hazeldine was charged with discharging a firearm in a public place and also with damaging two insulators, the property of the Post and Telegraph Department. The Magistrate amended the latter charge to read: “Wilfully damaging an insulator the property of the New Zealand Government.” The defendant pleaded guilty. Constable White said that in his district there was an epidemic of breaking insulators. In March 90 had been broken between Nightcaps and Ohai and a fortnight later 50 more in the vicinity of Nightcaps had been broken. At the end of June 35 on the road between Ohai and Wairaki-Beaumont had been broken, all apparently, as the result of rifle fire.

John Edward Flynn stated that he saw defendant taking aim at an insulator with a rifle. He was about 100 yards away and saw the insulator break. This was on the road going to Flynn’s. Raymond Johnston gave corroborative evidence. Defendant stated that after the Easter holidays he got a rifle and some cartridges, and with a companion he went up McColl’s road. They had two or three shots at rabbits and then came home again. For discharging a firearm defendant was ordered to pay costs and on the second charge he was fined £l, with costs £1 and witnesses’ expenses 10/-. Alleged Obstruction. William James Tinker pleaded not guilty to a charge of unlawfully obstructing the passage of Mrs E. Tinker along the road from Nightcaps to Tinkertown. In evidence, Mrs E. Tinker stated that she and her daughter were coming into Nightcaps from Tinkertown, when they saw William and Gordon Tinker coming in the opposite direction on bicycles. Gordon Tinker crossed over to the left side, but William Tinker eventually ran into her, and struck her on the right leg, while the handle bar hit her on the arm. William Tinker then told her to get off the road, and she replied that it was his place to get off, as he was on his wrong side. He said that he would de as he liked and would give witness all she was looking for. She responded that she was not looking for anything. As she was leaving him she stated that she was going to Constable White. To Mr J. C. Prain, who appeared for defendant, witness stated that her daughter was walking directly behind her when the Tinkers came along. They were joking, but witness did not know what they were laughing at. Defendant’s idea was to push her off the road, and he deliberately tried to do so.

Edna Tinker corroborated her mother’s evidence, and said that there was a considerable amount of friction between the two families. Mr Prain submitted that the case should be dismissed, as his client had no intention of running into complainant. Defendant was in the act of crossing over and fell off, but managed to save himself with his foot. He regretted that it had occurred. Defendant said that on the day in question he had been to Nightcaps to purchase stores, some of which he had on the’handlebar of the bicycle. He and his brother were riding to Tinkertown on a road which was practically a oneway road, and there were two ruts on each side. At no stage did he cross over, but in endeavouring to do so the handlebar touched complainant on the arm, but he had no intention of harming her. Mrs Tinker had given him the impression that she would push him off the road.

The Magistrate said that it looked as if defendant had deliberately wanted to push complainant and her daughter off the road, but he thought the ends of justice would be met if he dismissed the case and ordered defendant to pay witnesses’ expenses and Court costs, 18/-. The ranger of the Southland Acclimatization Society (Mr E, Duncan) proceeded against Thomas William Robson on a charge of illegally taking or killing opossums. Mr J. A. C. Mackenzie appeared for defendant and Mr Eustace Russell represented the society. In outlining the case, Mr Russell detailed the results of a visit of the rangers, Messrs Duncan and Templeton, to the camp. They met Robson' coming back from his line of traps and accosted him. Defendant was carrying a bag containing four opossum skins, one being cold, two quite warm and one slightly warm. When asked for his licence, Robson admitted that he did not have one. He denied trapping, but said that he was carrying the skins of the animals killed by the boys for whom he was doing the cooking. Ranger’s Evidence.

Mr Duncan said that, in company with Mr Templeton, he had visited the camp occupied by defendant, and saw both Geoffrey Robson and Spencer Dillon. As a result of what he had been told, he went to meet defendant, who was in a different direction to the others. He was carrying a bag on his back. Witness asked him if he had a licence, as he did not have him on his list. Defendant replied that he did not have a licence and was not trapping, but was cooking and cutting tracks, and so on, for the boys. He said that the Forestry Department had given him permission to do this. Witness said that he asked him to show the contents of the bag, and he found four freshly-killed opossums and a wooden clamp used for pulling skins. One was cold, two were distinctly warm, and one quite warm, showing that they had not been long killed. Defendant explained that the boys had killed them, and he was carrying them. Spencer Dillon and Geoffrey Robson told him that the latter had got two that morning and that he and his father secured 119 and Dillon 60. Dillon came in shortly after, carrying a slasher, and he said he had not caught any onossums

for three days. When they got back to camp defendant still denied that he was trapping but stated he had a permit to enter the State forest, but not to trap. Robson did not challenge the statements. Witness seized the skins, which he produced. To Mr Mackenzie, witness said that he did not see defendant trap or kill the animals, nor did he say anything to defendant about warm skins. He did not ask the son or Dillon about killing the opossums. Mr Templeton corroborated the evidence of the previous witness and said that Geoffrey Robson had informed him that his father was trapping on the opposite ridge. Defendant had no slasher or other implements, and he had never heard the father say he was blazing a trail. Constable Skipworth also gave corroborative evidence, and stated that defendant had said the boys had put the opossums in the bag and he was only assisting the boys with cooking. Defendant also remarked that Geoffrey Robson had trapped the opossums, but he had skinned them.

In opening for the defence, Mr Mackenzie said that defendant was charged with taking and killing but he would say that he did neither. Robson went to help the boys, and had made inquiries about a permit. Later on the rangers had told him he had to procure. a licence, and he had done so. At no stage was he killing or setting traps, as the latter had belonged to his son and Spencer Dillon. The defendant, in evidence, said that both boys were inexperienced, and as it was rough country he went in with them to do odd jobs and blaze the trail. The boys had asked Jiim to skin thi» opossums and bring them down ana he met the rangers on his road home. He was going over to blaze a trail on the opposite side of the ridge and had left his slasher in a convenient place. The rangers said the boys had told them that witness was round a line of traps, but he had never taken an opossum since he had been there. To Mr Russell, defendant admitted that he should have procured a licence to save trouble. He had 60 traps at home, and he was the experienced man in the party. No Experience In Bush. Spencer Inglis Dillon said that he was trapping with the Robsons in the Alton district, but had had no experience in the bush. He did not actually see the opossums killed on the date in question. He saw Geoffrey Robson going in the direction from which they were taken. He came into the camp when the rangers were there, but heard very little of the conversation. He had never seen Robson with traps, nor did he know of him setting them. Geoffrey Robson stated that he was certain his father had done no trapping in that locality. ~ , x i. To Mr Russell, witness said that he told the rangers he had 117 skins, and he got two out of his line of traps that morning. ’ To Mr Mackenzie witness said it was not unusual for his father to be skinning opossums. The Magistrate said that it was a pity the father had put his son in the box to testify to statements which were not correct. Defendant had had experience before in trapping opossums, and he had no need to take out a licence if he was only doing the cooking. In imposing a penalty, he would take defendant s circumstances into consideration and instead of fining him £5, he would make it £1 16/-, witnesses’ expenses 10/-, costs 12/-, and solicitor’s fee £2 2/-. George A. Cameron pleaded guilty to taking unlawfully opossums during a close season, and Arthur Gill also pleaded guilty to assisting him. Mr Russell said that as a result of complaints about illegal trapping in the locality, the rangers had paid a visit. A few opossums and 14 traps had been seized. Gill had been interviewed and had admitted to the rangers and constable that he had assisted Cameron to carry the traps. On June 14 he had packed up opossum skins. It was clear that Cameron was engaged in illegally trapping opossums before the season opened, and that Gill was assisting hmi Cameron was convicted and fined £4, costs 12/- and solicitor’s fee £1 11/6, and Gill was fined £2, costs 12/- and solicitor’s fee £1 11/6. Dwight Stephen Campbell Miller was also charged with illegally taking opossums in the Alton District. Defendant put in a letter and complained about delay in getting a licence. Mr Russell said that defendant had sent an application for a permit on July 7 to prepare for trapping, but not to trap. The licence was made payable to Orawia and not to Tuatapere. Defendant had been punished already by losing 50 skins. The Magistrate convicted and fined defendant £2, costs 10/- and solicitors fee £1 11/6. RIVER BOARD A meeting of ratepayers and others interested in the Otautau River Board was held in the Otautau Town Hall to protest against the proposed increase m rates for the current year in the Bayswater and Otautau sub-divisions, lhe members of the board, Messrs John Flett (chairman), F. J. Collie and G. Low (Bayswater), W. J. Wesney and W. J. F. McCulloch (Otautau), J. D. Clouston (Waikouro), and John Fisher (clerk) were present by invitation. Dr W. B. Reekie, who presided, stated that the proposed increase in rates in the sub-divisions affected would amount to 300 per cent. They had not met in a spirit of antagonism or animosity to members of the board. They were there solely to gain some informatMr A. Sounness, of Bayswater, said that last year, Bayswater, with a rate of Ad, had raised £159, and Otautau, with id, £lOB. Under the proposed rate the figures would be roughly £220 and £324 respectively. He understood that no new works would be undertaken, but a rumour had been circulated that the Waikouro sub-division had got into difficulties and it was proposed to take £6O from the Bayswater sub-division and £2OO from the Otautau sub-division to help it out. This the ratepayers strongly objected to. Mr D. Clouston, a member of the sub-committee appointed to go into the question, said that the deficit was £422, and there was approximately £243 outstanding in rates. When dredging operations were begun there was a shortage of £3OO in Waikouro, and it had never recovered, this being due to the fact that it was paying interest. The depression had come along, consequently people were not in a position to pay. Last year £2O was paid in interest, in addition to the sinking funds on loans, and no work had been done in his sub-division. With the conversion of the loans it had been anticipated that the debt would be liquidated. Mr Clouston said that the subcommittee appointed to go into ways and means had considered the raising of a further loan, and also the raising of the rate for two years to 2d. Last year approximately £2OO was collected in rates. The next recommendation was to raise the rates as follows: Ijd in Nos. 2 and 3 sub-divisions, -Jd in Bayswater, and Ad in Otautau, which would liquidate the debt in one year and put the board in a ver;- good position. If the members of the latter subdivisions objected to the proposal it was not intended to force the matter, but all men with a progressive spirit would realize that Bayswater and Otautau were in a fortunate position, and if they worked together in a co-opera-tive spirit they would lose nothing by it. If they collected every penny of the rates at the present levy it would take 11 years to get rid of the debt. Government Grant. Mr Flett said that the sum of £l5OO had been granted by, the Government

to drain the Strathvale settlement, but before the money was paid over it was stipulated that a further £aooo had to be spent to ensure outfall further down the river. When the work was started £BOO had been spent in Otautau before the work reached Waikouro, and £250 of the grant had also been spent. He would like to see the rate go through this year, as it would enable the board to carry on. . Mr Collie said that his sub-division was in a different position from the rest, and unless the ratepayers were sympathetic he would not be a party to the increase suggested. Mr Sounness said that they strongly objected to Bayswater paying extra to benefit Waikouro, as they had put protective banks up in the Aparima, and the ratepayers had paid for all this work themselves, and would do so again if it were warranted. Mr Baker strongly objected to a rise in the rates. Mr A. Gould said that he was m sympathy with ratepayers in Waikouro but he did not think it fair to put up the rate. Dealing with the Aparima river, he stated that they had received a donation from the board, and had done the work themselves. Mr Sounness inquired why the Waikouro sub-division had not liquidated its own debt. He said that the boundaries of the Bayswater sub-division had been altered from what was originally proposed, and when this was discovered it was too late to do anything in the ■ matter. Mr Clouston said that when Bayswater was included the board had to pay for work done in that locality until the rates were collected. The money was paid back. The sum of £3OO was outstanding when they commenced operations, and when the area between Otautau and the Wreys Bush road was included in Bayswater part of the debt was not taken over. Mr McCulloch quoted figures to show that the Otautau sub-division was £5 16/1 worse off than last year, and said that with the work ahead of it the board would have to strike the same rate this year. He did not altogether fall into line with the proposal and he was sure the majority of the ratepayers would not wish the members to vote for it. Rates From Crown Tenants. Mr Fisher said that part of the diffiuclty in Waikouro was inability to collect rates from Crown tenants. He pionted out that the original intention when the board was formed was the preservation of the Otautau township and the work already carried out had been of material benefit. If the proposed rates were not struck the amount of money required to carry on, plus interest and sinking fund, could not be raised. He suggested that the River Board might be merged into the Wallace County Council, which would apportion the localities to the various ridings. Although this would not relieve them of their commitments, a lot of trouble might be obviated. In answer to a question by Mr Baker whether application had been made to the Government for the payment of rates, the clerk stated that this had been done repeatedly and the current year’s rates had bene paid. A definite statement had been made that this would not be allowed in future. Mr Wesney said that he would not stand for an increase in rates. If the Crown tenants had paid up the Waikouro sub-division would not have been in the position it was to-day. Mr A. Sounness moved it be a recommendation to the River Board that the Waikouro sub-division should strike a rate to liquidate its own debt. This was seconded by Mr Spratt and carried. It was resolved that it be a recommendation that the meeting desired the board to approach the Government about the rates on Crown lands, and request that they be paid.