MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Southland Times, Issue 23839, 9 June 1939, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY (Before Mr R. C. Abernethy, S.M.) James Gibson Edwards pleaded guilty to the theft of a bicycle valued at £lO/10/-. Detective-Sergeant R. Thompson said that this young man had been working in the country, but had been wandering about Invercargill for a week. He stole a bicycle from a right-of-way next to a shop in Dee street. The bicycle had been recovered. He had been before the Magistrate at Riverton for theft and had been sentenced to one year in the Borstal Institution. He had been released on licence and was at present on probation. “The accused has evidently made up his mind to go the wrong way,’ De-tective-Sergeant Thompson added. The accused admitted three previous convictions for theft. “It is very difficult to know what to do with you,” said the Magistrate, addressing the accused. “I am not concerned with making a gaol bird of you, but am more concerned with making a decent citizen of you. That may be possible, but it depends on you. You have had some pretty good chances, and up to a certain stage you have done well, and then you have fallen down. You will have to have some more discipline I am afraid, and must take yourself in hand.” ~ ~ j The Magistrate said the accused would be sentenced to one month s imprisonment, and that would mean that his probation licence would be looked into. He had broken the conditions and might get further discipline out of, that “When you have had that, the Magistrate concluded, “you had better look to yourself, otherwise you will have a lot of trouble.” theft of a wallet

Pleading guilty to the theft of a wallet valued at 10/- and the sum of £l5 in money, Peter Taylor, a Maori, was sentenced to two years’ probation and ordered to make restitution of £l3. Detective-Sergeant Thompson said the offence was the outcome of a drunken carousal between accused and the plainant, a resident of Colac Bay. They had been drinking all afternoon at the hotel at Lorneville. Both were under the influence of liquor, and came mto town where they had more drink. They were drinking together that night in the same room, and when the complainant fell asleep he had his wallet and money with him. When he awoke they were gone. The accused was interviewed by the complainant and he admitted the theft, returning £2 to the complainant. Later the accused was interviewed by Detective J. Hill, but he said he did not remember the theft because he was too drunk. The accused had been before the Court in 1932 for a breach of probation. He belonged to the Little River district, but had been in the south for a considerable time _ The accused said the complainant was his cousin. He had not seen him for three or four years, and had met him at the hotel. “I had £6 of my own, he added. “I admit I lost his wallet, and if I had a chance I think I could go back to the place and find it?’ “Do you think you could find it? asked the Magistrate. The accused: I’d give it a try. Detective-Sergeant Thompson remarked that it was possible somebody else had discovered it. _ “I have a lot of proof to bring up, said the accused, “but I don’t like to bring names in. I could pay back the money in a month’s time if I am given a chance.” He added that the fishing strikes were over now and he would be going back to work. “You are taking a lot for granted, said the Magistrate. “You are liable to six months’ imprisonment. You have not been in gaol yet, and I don’t know that I should not send you this time. However, you have not been before the Court since 1932 and have been running straight. If you come before me on a charge like this you will be put in gaol. I will take into consideration the fact that you have behaved yourself for the last six years. You are lucky.” CONVERSION OF CARS William Robert Bond Gouldsmith pleaded guilty to unlawfully converting a motor-car valued at £2OO at Hamilton on May 6, to unlawfully converting a motor-car valued at £2OO at Auckland on the same day, and the theft at Auckland on April 28 of a pair of trousers valued at 13/- and a pair of shoes valued at 15/-. Detective-Sergeant Thompson said the accused was serving a sentence of two years in the Borstal Institution. He had stolen the clothing from the Salvation Army Home in Auckland and

had then taken the cars. He was later arrested and sentenced to two years’ detention for the theft of another car. This was really the washing up of several charges against the accused. The accused was convicted and discharged on each charge, and an order was made for the return of the property. CHARGE OF ASSAULT William Thomas McQuarrie (Mr G. C. Cruickshank) pleaded guilty to assaulting William John Condon at Bluff on February 4. Senior Sergeant Kelly said that on February 4 the complainant attended a dance at Bluff and the accused arrived soon after. During the dance the accused called him a police “pimp.” There had been a little trouble between them and ’ the accused had been under the impression that the complainant had given the police some information about some trouble at one of the hotels. Blows were exchanged, and it was definitely stated that the accuse ’ was the aggressor, and that the complainant was endeavouring to get away from him. Complainant s face was bleeding badly and he had to have three stitches inserted. His clothes were ruined. Mr, Cruickshank said there was no disturbance actually in the hall. There had been bad feeling between the par- ■ ties and they both decided to settle their differences in this unfortunate manner. The accused, who was 19 years of age, had not been in similar trouble before, and counsel asked the Court to take the circumstances and the accused’s age into consideration. The senior sergeant said that both were more or less under the influence of liquor. The complainant’s suit was valued at £B, and had been worn only a week. In answer to a question from the Magistrate Mr Cruickshank said the accused had just returned from the Mutton-bird islands. The accused was fined £1 10/- and was ordered to pay witness’s expenses 8/-, railway fare 1/6 and Court costs 16/-. The Magistrate said he had made the fine lighter so that (he accused could make some reparation to the complainant for the value of his suit CIVIL CASES Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases:—A. L. Kay v. A. J. France, £l3/10/- costs £2/14/-; Alpine Dairy v. J. D. Clark, £3/19/6, costs £l/5/6; Thomas Borthwick v. F. Carter (Centre Bush), £5/15/9, costs £l/14/6; Alpine Dairy v. W. Lines, £3/10/6, costs £l/4/6; M. Henderson Ltd. v. J. W. Urauhart (Riverton), £9/1/2, costs £l/10/6; Tappers Ltd. v. C. A. McLeay (Glencoe R.D.), £2O/18/9, costs £4/3/6; H. and J. Smith Ltd. v. W. A. H. Oliver, £l4/15/4, costs £2/16/-; C. Meredith v. J. P. Hogan, £B/10/-, costs £l/11/6; S. McDonald Ltd. v. T. Scott £l/10/-, costs 8/-; Herbert Schroeder v. F. W. Fox, £2/12/-, costs £l/5/6; Macaulay Motors Ltd. v. W. Rasmussen (Bluff), 12/-, costs 8/-; Scoullar and Chisholm v. T. J. Leighton, £2/0/11, costs £l/5/6; Smith and Smith Ltd. v. J. M. Penny (Bluff), £2/9/2, costs £l/3/6; Reid and Gray Ltd. v. P. J. Hall, £3/15/-, costs £l/4/6; Thomas Shiels Ltd v. E. Eggleton (New Plymouth), £3/14/-, costs £l/3/6; Ernest Bradshaw v. Daniel James Walsh, 15/2, costs 10/-; Ernest Bradshaw v. John R. Roderique (Bluff), £l/18/5, costs 8/-. REHEARING REFUSED Mr G. J. Reed made application for a rehearing of a case in which judgment was given on April 27 against Ewen Alexander Anderson for £42. Mr Reed said that a judgment summons had been issued against his client by Mr J. L. Hewitt, S.M., when Mr Abernethy was cn holiday. He was applying for a rehearing on the grounds that Anderson had not been represented by counsel at the time, that he did not set out his financial position as he did not know what was required of him, and that he was unable to pay the debt His average weekly earnings from January 1937 to April 1939 had been £4/8/6, and he had a wife and four children. “I submit that if all the facts had been brought out,” said counsel, “the Court would not have made an order.” He added that the applicant had been sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended on payment of 5/- a week. Mr G. Caldwell, for the Public Trustee, the judgment creditor, opposed the application, saying that the debtor had appeared before the Court and had been examined in the usual way, to a large extent by the Court itself. To justify a rehearing it would have to be shown that the Court had been misled in some way. Evidence was given by the applicant, who said he had appeared on the judgment summons, but he had not then mentioned that the property was under the control of the State and the claim was being made by another State department. His earnings after he had paid for the upkeep of his family, did not leave him anything to pay his debt.

The Magistrate said he did not think he could lightly set aside an order made by another Magistrate, or grant a rehearing, unless he was satisfied the debtor had not received the proper treatment he should have received in Court. “There is nothing to justify that,” he added. “Whether I should have come to the same conclusion as the other Magistrate is beside the point. The applicant placed his statement before the Court and he was examined by the Court. I cannot find anything to justify me in finding fie did not receive proper treatment by the Court as a judgment debtor.” The Magistrate said the Court was reluctant to make such orders unless it was satisfied about the position. The applicant might have had some bad luck, but he had no doubt the Public Trustee would be human enough to take that into consideration. The application was dismissed.