MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 23346, 2 November 1937, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

MONDAY / (Before Mr W. H. Freeman, S.M.) Raymond Allan Everill Cocker appeared on a charge of being found in a state of intoxication while in charge of a car and was further charged with driving in a manner which might have been dangerous to the public. The first charge was dismissed by the court and on the second he was convicted and fined £5 and costs £1 12/6. Defendant, who pleaded not guilty to both charges, was represented by Mr J. R. Hanan. The plea for the second charge was later changed to one of guilty. Senior Sergeant Kelly explained the circumstances of the case and evidence was given by Dr W. J. Barclay, who examined defendant after he had been taken to the police station. Dr Barclay said that accused showed signs of having taken liquor, but his co-ordination was reasonably good. Witness had come to the conclusion that although defendant had taken drink he could not say that he was unfit to drive a car.

In evidence the city traffic inspector (Mr E., Stopford) said he had been in his car on the Waihopai bridge at 7.10 on Saturday night, facing north, when he saw the car driven by defendant approaching him on the extreme left of the road. From the amount of dust at the back of the car he would say it was travelling at a fairly good pace. When in the vicinity of Whittingham’s brewery, the driver had to swerve to avoid a cyclist and seemed to swerve more than a normal driver would. From the attitude of the driver and his posture at the wheel witness thought he appeared to be intoxicated. He decided to investigate and turned his car to follow defendant, but by the time he turned it was noticeable that the other car was accelerating. It turned into Duke street and by the time witness got to Duke street the other car was passing over Russell street intersection on the wrong side of the centreline of the road. The car continued along Duke street chiefly on the centre line of the road and although at times witness was driving at 55 miles an hour he could not overtake defendant’s car, which turned into Elies roaa, cutting the comer. Defendant then drove along Herbert street and turned south, cutting the comer, into Windsor street. Defendant cut the comer into King street and was finally overtaken by witness when he had to pull up for a tram which was taking on passengers in Sydney street. Defendant when questioned by witness admitted having had six or seven drinks and was, in the opinion of witness, too intoxicated to be in charge of a car. The car was a rental one and although baffled down was capable of a speed of 45 miles an hour. To Mr Hanan: Defendant, in his opinion, had been going fast along the North road, but had driven at a normal speed over the bridge. He would agree that it was necessary to take precautions in swerving with a rental car. Defendant had been courteous and gentlemanly when taken to the police station. In his opinion, defendant knew he was being followed and had driven the car as fast as it would go. He would not hear the siren of witness s car because of the wind and the fact that he was so far in front. There had been the usual amount of traffic about for that hour. Defendant had done the correct thing when he pulled up for the tram-car. Witness had experienced much worse cases and had not “had his eye” on accused before. Mr Hanan said that on the evidence of the traffic inspector he would alter the plea for the second charge to one of guilty. He submitted, however, that there was no case to answer on the intoxication charge. Accused was a shop assistant and had his twenty-first birthday on Thursday. The Magistrate: And he was having it on Saturday instead? But he doesn’t have a twenty-first birthday very often in his life, does he? The first charge was dismissed and accused was fined £5 and costs £1 12/6 on the second charge—that of driving in a manner which might have been dangerous to the public. A MONTH’S IMPRISONMENT Alexander Newton Reid, aged 21, of Invercargill, who pleaded guilty to the theft of £2, the property of Hannah Soper, was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. Detective Sergeant Thompson said that accused had visited the house of complainant and sat in the kitchen there for some time. A purse was lying on the sewing machine and accused had taken the money from the purse during the absence of Mrs Soper. He had admitted the offence when interviewed. Accused had recently been before the court for the theft of an overcoat and had stolen the money a few days after he had been fined for the first offence. He had not appeared to take heed of the warning he had received on the occasion he had been before the court. The Magistrate to accused: What have you got to say? Accused: Nothing. The Magistrate: You were given an opportunity before, you know. In reply to a question from the Magistrate, Detective Sergeant Thompson said that accused was a friend of complainant and had gone to the house on some fictitious excuse, taking advantage of her absence to steal the money. She was a widow. The Magistrate, in sentencing accused, said he had been given an opportunity and had not taken advantage of it. His action had been a mean one. CHARGE OF THEFT A man charged with the theft of £53 6/9, the property of the New Zealand Railways Department, appeared before Mr T. Pryde, Justice of the Peace, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon. On the application of Detective Sergeant Thompson he was remanded till Thursday at 2.15 p.m. Mr G. J. Reed, who represented accused, applied for bail, which was allowed at £5O, with one surety of £5O, on condition that accused reported daily to the police.