Gore MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 23178, 20 April 1937, Page 4

Gore MAGISTRATE’S COURT

YESTERDAY’S SITTING

(Before Mr W; H. Freeman, S.M.)

Judgment was entered for plaintiffs in the following undefended civil claims:—J. H. Matthews v. Murdock Soper (Queenstown), for £l5 18/-, costs £3 12/-; McPhersons Ltd., v. Albert Hinsley (Mossburn), £9 19/2, costs £1 2/6- R. L. Gilmour v. Northcoat and Black (Waikaia), £2 1/2, costs £1 17/6; the National Mortgage and Agency Co., Ltd. v. Michael McCann (Parawa), £4 7/11, costs £1 13/6; New Zealand Express Co., Ltd., v. Henry J. Greer (Riversdale), £1 5/-, costs 12/-; D. Stewart v. H. J. Greer, £3B 19/4, costs £4 5/6; Mrs E. Scully v. Jack Muir (Balclutha), £1 18/-, costs 8/-; H. and J. Smith Ltd. v. G. E. Stiven (Tapanui), £2 9/9, costs £1.7/6; A. V. Latty, Ltd., v. W. Anderson (Gore), 16/-, costs 10/-. On a judgment summons Donald Paterson (Crookston) was ordered to pay Wright, Stephenson and Co., Ltd., £2 13/-, in default three days’ imprisonment. Allan Bums (Edievale) was ordered to pay £3 17/- to the Empire Hardware Stores, in default four days’ imprisonment, on a judgment summons.

Traffic Cases

John Brand, a farm labourer, of Knapdale, was charged with riding a bicycle at night without a light. The defendant wrote pleading guilty, stating that he had been busy harvesting, and had not finished work until 7 o’clock on the night in question. , The deefndant was fined 5/- and costs. , David Murray Telfer, a farmer, of McNab, wrote pleading guilty to a similar charge. - , j The defendant was fined 5/- and costs John Wilson, of Gore, pleaded guilty to a similar charge and was fined 5/and costs. The traffic inspector, Mr C. Matthews, proceeded against Francis Bryan Windle, of Gore, for riding a motorcycle across the Main street parking area instead of at the intersection. The defendant was fined 10/- and costs. Harry Day, of East Gore, . wrote pleading guilty to a charge of riding a bicycle on the footpath. He was fined 5/- and costs. John Robert Nicholas Hubber, an electrical engineer, of Gore, wrote pleading guilty to a charge of failing to renew his motor-driver’s licence. The defendant was fined 10/- and costs. To" a similar charge, Thomas William Stevenson, an electrician, of Gore, wrote pleading guilty. He was fined 10/- and costs.

Sale of Liquor

Alexander Stewart, licensee of the Law Court’s Hotel, Dunedin, was charged with selling liquor to Sydney Rolf intended to be taken into the nolicence district of Clutha without an order being signed for same and the address and occupation of the purchaser attached. Mr Bell appeared for the defendant, who pleaded guilty. . . j ± Sergeant Abel said the defendant received a money order telegram from Clinton on January 30 for two bottles of whisky. The man who ordered the whisky died the following day. The defendant was asked if he had an order and produced one, but it was not signed. The defendant had relied on the money order telegram. Mr Bell said he hoped it would not be inferred or deduced that Rolf had died as the result of drinking his client’s whisky. Actually the deceased was a methylated spirits addict. The breach by his client in relation to the order was purely a technical one. The law was not very well known. The defendant was convicted and fined 10/- and costs. George Stevenson, a bricklayer, of Gore, was charged with taking four bottles of beer into the no-licence disti’ct of Mataura without having a signed order and the address and occupation of the purchaser attached. Mr R. B. Bannerman appeared for defendant, who pleaded guilty. Sergeant Abel said the defendant was conveying liquor from Mandeville to Gore for other persons for which he did not have an order. Mr Bannerman said the law about the breach was not very well known. The defendant was coming in from the. country when he picked up someone at Mandeville who had liquor and brought him to Gore. It was not very widely known that under the circumstances such persons should have orders. . x , The defendant was convicted and fined 10/- and costs. Albert Mason, a salesman, of Gore, was similarly charged. Mr Bannerman appeared for the defendant, who pleaded guilty and said that the facts were the same. The defendant was convicted and fined 10/- and costs. Theft of Money

A labourer, aged 19 years, of Gore, whose name. was suppressed, pleaded’ guilty to a charge of stealing £5, the property, of Margaret King, of Gore. Mr E.' C. Smith appeared for the' defendant, who elected to be dealt with summarily. , , , . Sergeant Abel said the defendant was a frequent visitor to the complainant’s house. He had been playing with the children and then went into the bedroom and stole the money, of which he had spent £2 18/-. He had been admonished in the Children’s Court for a similar offence. Mr Smith said the chief trouble appeared to be that the defendant preferred playing with smaller children and lacked the more invigorating influence of older boys. He suggested that his name be suppressed. The Magistrate said in view of the defendant’s youth he would suppress his name. The defendant would be admitted to probation for six months, restitution of the amount spent to be made. ■ . T. W. Edge, a coal mine manager, of Waikaka, was charged that being the manager of the Glendhu coal mine where a mechanical ventilation appliance had been installed, did fail to start and run continuously such appliance to its usual running capacity during the whole of the time that a workman was in the mine, and for at least two hours before the said workman entered the mine. Mr W. B. Johnston appeared for the defendant, who pleaded guilty. Mr Job Hughes, the inspector of mines, said that when he arrived at the mine, the fan belt was not working.

The defendant was not present. This in itself was a breach of the regulations. Two shots had just been fired and the mine was full of smoke. Mr Johnston stated that he considered the offence was a technical one. There was a fan belt in the mine ana the actual current of air that could flow through the mine was sufficient. The defendant had happened to be absent from the mine when the inspector had called. The mining regulations applying to lignite pits were considered unreasonable and representations had been made to the Minister of Mines (the Hon. P. C. Webb) to have an adjustment made. The Magistrate said he was only concerned with the regulations. The defendant was fined £2 and costs £1 13/-. . Victor Charles Horrell, a labourer,_ ot Gore, was charged with assaulting Thomas James Hood. Sergeant Abel conducted the case for the police. Mr R. B. Bannerman appeared for the defendant and entered a plea of not guilty. Thomas James Hood, an agent, residing at Ashton street, Gore, said the defendant was his neighbour, and had been for about six months. There was a dividing fence between the properties. On the night of the assault the defendant came into his right-of-way at about 9 o’clock. Witness was about to start his car ana the defendant did not speak but struck him with something several times. He was dazed and his wife and the children came out. He understood they pulled the defendant off him. He could give no reason for the assault. The defendant had previously been warned not to come on to witness’s property. Mr Bannerman: You say that the right-of-way is yours?—Yes. When I rented the house I was given sole use of the right-of-way. Mr Bannerman: Is it not a fact that the defendant has to use the right-of-way to get coal into his coal-house?— He used it the week before, but he is not going to use it again. How long had you been starting the car?—A few minutes.

You were racing the engine?—No. There was a baby in the house next door?—Surely I can start my car when I want to *

The defendant came to you and complained of the noise you were making? —He said nothing to me. He just opened the door and struck me. You kicked him in the face?—l used my feet to push him off. I was dazed from his blows and do not know much of what happened. Mr Bannerman further cross-exam-ined the defendant at length. Mrs Hood, the previous witness’s wife, said she was standing at the door and saw Horrell come into the yard and go to the car. She then saw him attack her husband. She went over to stop him and was struck by Hoirell. She endeavoured to push him out of the yard, but he again struck her. Mrs Horrell then came into the yard. Witness told her to get out. Mr Barmerman: Did you strike Mrs Horrell?—No, I merely pushed her. Have you ever struck anybody before?—No.

Didn’t you strike Mr Horrell’s brother?—He was in our yard ’on a Friday night and I pushed him out. I told him to get out. z Didn’t you strike the defendant?—No, I said to him “Look what you have done to my husband.” He then struck me.

Mr Horrell says you struck him.— My word is as good as his. Exactly. That appears to be the trouble in this case. You believe what your husband says but not what Mr Horrell 'says?—l have every reason to believe what my husband said;'l saw him attacked.

Didn’t you urge the dog on to Horrell?—No. The dog is not mine. I fared it. I put it to you- that while the dog held Horrell by the pants you struck him.—l did nothing of the sort You struck Mrs Horrell then?—l did not. I pushed her out of the yard. Witness stated that the dog had not bitten anyone before. How long was your husband starting his car?—Not long. Insulting Language Alleged 1 Do you think it was a neighbourly action to stop Mr Horrell putting coal in his yard?—lt was because he used insulting language. He said that if the infantile paralysis broke out, it would be in our place. Milton Hood said he heard the defendant tell his father to stop the engine of the car. He then came in and attacked his father. His mother did not strike Mr Horrell. Horrell struck his mother. Mr Bannerman: You urged the dog on to Horrell?—No, I told him to stop hitting my mother. I said I ought to put the dog on him.

Constable Potts said he went to the scene of the disturbance about seven minutes past nine. Both Mr and Mrs Hood were bleeding from facial cuts. Horrell in the meantime had gone to the police station to make a statement. In this statement he said the trouble was due to Hood making an infernal noise with his car which had kept the baby awake. Mr Bannerman: What sort of a reputation has Hood?—We know nothing against him. This completed the case for the police.

Mr Bannerman said the defence was that Horrell went round to remonstrate with Hood for making such a noise with the car. This was what any normal man would do. When he arrived at the car Hood told him to get out The defence would contend that Horrell tried to point out to Hood that the noise was keeping the baby awake. Hood grabbed Horrell by the hair and a rough and tumble ensued. Mrs Hood came out with the dog and urged it on to Horrell, who had to use force to get clear. He did not deny hitting Hood, but that he had done so in self-defence. Counsel submitted that the evidence of Hood and Mrs Hood was conflicting. Both were of an excitable nature. There seemed to be some trouble over the right-of-way. Hood maintained that it was- his and Horrell went to solicitors to find out his position. This in itself showed that he wanted to act in accordance with the law. Previous tenants had used the right-of-way. Counsel contended that the events of the night did not reveal Horrell guilty of assault.

Horrell gave evidence along similar lines to counsel.

In reply to Sergeant Abel Horrell said his wife told him to leave Hood alone, before he went to the car. The Magistrate: What Mrs Horrell said to Mr Horrell is not evidence. However, I have heard sufficient of the case to be satisfied that the defendant’s story is the more truthful one. The case was dismissed.