GORE

Southland Times, Issue 24113, 30 April 1940, Page 9

GORE

MAGISTRATE’S COURT MONDAY (Before Mr R. C. Abernethy, S.M.) Judgment was given, for th.e plaintiffs by default in the following civil claims:—Barbara Welsh v. Gordon Kirkness (Dunedin) for £7, costs £1 12/6; J. J. Ferris v. A. R. Murdoch (Invercargill) for 15/-, costs 10/-; Creditors’ Protection Ltd. v. E. W. Collett (Lyttelton) for £B/1/-, costs £l/10/6; Diamond and Hart Ltd. v. Frederick G. Thompson and Sophia Pringle Thompson (Waihola) for £l/10/-, costs £1 2/-. Ernest Wallace Frame, of Heriot, was proceeded against by Inspector Laughton, of the Transport Department, for operating a heavy motor-vehicle without a licence. He was convicted and fined 10/-, costs 10/-. Ronald Henry Ward and Albert Edward Ward, trading as Ward Bros., were charged with committing a breach of the 30-mile restriction on a goods service licence. Mr J. D. Paterson appeared for the defendants and entered a plea of guilty. The defendants were convicted and fined £l/10/-, costs 10/-. John Erroll Miller, of Gore, was charged with behaving in a disorderly manner in Main street on March 29. He was represented by Mr A. Smyth, who entered a plea of guilty. Sergeant Black said that the accused, when approached by another man, used abusive language and pulled the latter’s hat down over his face. He then invited him round the corner for a fight. The accused was under the influence of liquor at the time. Mr Smyth said that the accused had had a few drinks. The complainant was a school mate of the accused and he had a criminal record. The accused was convicted and fined £l/10/-, costs 10/-. INTOXICATION CHARGE Robert Leishman McLennan, a farmer, of Kaiwera, appeared on a charge of being intoxicated while in charge of a motor-vehicle. He was represented by Mr A. Smyth, who entered a plea of guilty. Sergeant D. W. Black said that at 5.15 p.m. on April 20, Inspector P. Laughton, of the Transport Department, was patrolling the Mandeville road when he noticed that the driver of one car in a line of traffic proceeding'towards Gore was not paying sufficient attention to the control of bis car. He was gesticulating with his right arm and was apparently talking with a passenger. The inspector turned hi? car and overtook the driver about a mile from Gore. The driver was the accused and when nearing the Gore boundary he took a bad swerve to the right. When stopped by the inspector the accused said that when he swerved to the wrong side of the road there was no traffic about and it was all right. Tire inspector was of the opinion that the accused was not in a fit condition to drive and he arrested him. The accused was taken to the police station and examined by Dr R. G. Stokes, who certified him to be too intoxicated to be a safe driver. He was a single man and this was the first time he had been before the court.

Mr Smyth said that the facts as he understood them were different to those stated by the sergeant. He understood that the defendant’s driving was not the subject of much criticism by the inspector except that he took a bend on the wrong side, but that it was his gesticulating that drew the inspector’s attention to him. Counsel requested that the inspector be put in the box to be asked about the driving of the accused.

Inspector Laughton said that he met the car driven by the defendant on the crest of a hill. The defendant had his head turned the other way and the witness felt certain that he did not see his car at all. The witness turned his car and gave chase. The accused took a bad swerve to the right on one occasion. Apart from that he held a fairly steady course. He was not going from one side of the road to the other. Mr Smyth said that the accused was a man of long experience with cars. He had been at the dog trials at Croydon and apparently had a drink or two more than he should have had when in charge of a car. It was realized that the charge was not one of being intoxicated to such an extent that he was incapable of driving. He was just charged with being intoxicated while in charge of a motor-car. It appeared that he was driving his car in a far more capable manner than was usually the case when a man was detected of having had too much liquor when in charge of a car. “This defendant may have been safer than other drivers and he may not,” said the Magistrate. “I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that point. At the same time I am certain that he took a serious risk. However, I am not going to imprison him.” The defendant was convicted and fined £25, with doctor’s expenses £l/1/-. His driving licence was cancelled and he was disqualified from obtaining another for 12 months. TERM OF IMPRISONMENT Frederick William Boyes, a labourer, of Gore, was charged with keeping liquor for sale in a no-licence area. Mr G. F. Inder appeared for the accused and entered a plea of not guilty. Sergeant D. W. Black conducted the case for the police. Constable J. Feeley said that he had kept the defendant’s house under observation and on March 3 a man named Bourke drove up in a car. He went into a shed where the defendant was working and after a minute or two both men went into defendant’s house. Soon afterwards the men came out and walked towards the car. Bourke had then in his possession a bottle of beer in each pocket of his coat and there was a bulge in his left-hand trouser pocket. This could have been caused by another bottle of beer. Bourke got into the car and Boyes, who was wearing a brown pull-over at the time, pulled another bottle of beer from under the jersey and placed it on the seat of the car. The witness was quite certain that Bourke had no beer with him when he entered the house. A search warrant was obtained and the witness searched the defendant’s house with Sergeant Black. Fourteen bottles of beer were found, and it was noticed that there were 43 empty bottles in the pantry, a two-gallon jar, which was empty, and a gallon jar which was also empty. Both jars smelt of fresh beer. Nine more empty bottles were found in a sack in a bedroom. Asked where he obtained all the empty bottles the defendant said his children collected them and sold them. He could not, however, give the witness the names of any dealers to whom bottles were sold. Asked for an explanation as to why he had so much liquor in the house the defendant had told the witness that he had purchased four gallons at the Mandeville hotel the previous night. When asked where was the balance of the four gallons the defendant had stated that there had been a party at his house the previous night when some of the liquor was consumed. He would not disclose the names of the members of the party. He had also stated that no one had called at his house that morning and that he had not sold any liquor that day. Sergeant Black also gave evidence. Mr Inder said that the liquor had been obtained for a party which was held at the home of the accused the night before. He submitted that the liquor found was a reasonable amount for a person’s own use. In evidence the accused said that some of the boys were going into camp

and he had obtained some liquor for a party which was held at his house on March 2. Arrangements had been made at this party for the accused to obtain further liquor for another party which was to be held when they returned on final leave. The members of the party had handed ovei' the money and the accused had purchased the liquor. The Magistrate indicated that he proposed to convict the accused. He stated that he had no doubt that what the sergeant and constable had said was substantially correct. He had no doubt that the defendant had had two parties at his house and he had not the slightest doubt that he had been selling liquor. The accused had been convicted on three previous occasions for similar offences. “I issued warnings about this business and I do not issue warnings for nothing,” said the Magistrate. “Unfortunately, the penalty will to a certain extent fall on the wife and family.”

The accused was convicted and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. An order for the forfeiture of the liquor was made.