DRUNK ON MOTOR=CYCLE

Taranaki Daily News, 9 April 1927, Page 5

DRUNK ON MOTOR=CYCLE

MAORI IN OPUNAKE COURT DANGEROUS DRIVING CHARGES. IN HOTELS AFTER HOURS. The Magistrate’s Court sat in Opunake yesterday, Mr. R, W. Tate, S.M., presiding. Though he was advised by several people not to ride his motor eycle at the time, William Matangi did so, and consequently became invovled in a collision with another cyclist on the Main South Road on the night of March 12. Both men were taken to the New Plymouth hospital, and Matangi was also taken to court to answer charges of dangerous driving, of driving a motor cycle while in a state'of intoxication, and of driving at night without lights. He pleaded guilty to the first two charges and not guilty to the third. Matangi and some mates had a drinking bout at Rahotu. A friend took Matangi home, but after he had gone, defendant, who was well intoxicated, decided to ride his own motor cycle back to get his overcoat. His people tried to persuade him not to do this, but ho was determined and went for the coat. The people there, too, advised him not to ride in his then state, but Matangi had decided to go to a dance hi Waitara and set oil, though his lights were far from good. Just before 8 p.m. he collided with another motor cycle. So violent was the impact that "the two machines remained standing, locked together, on the road, though the riders were both thrown off. The constable at Rahotu went to the scene of the accident. He could smell no carbide, and when he examined the cycle later he found a split in the tube connecting the lamp with the generator. This prevented any gas from getting to the lamp. The split had not been caused in the accident. Accused admitted in court that he was too drunk to remember anything of the accident. The Magistrate told Matangi he would either have to give up drink or motoring, to which accused replied that he thought he would give up both. This course was recommended by the Magistrate, who impressed upon Matangi that if he was convicted again of such an offence he was sure to go to gaol. He was fined £5 and costs for being drunk in charge of the cycle, was convicted and ordered to pay costs (10s) on each of the other charges, and was disqualified from holding a motor driver’s license for three years. BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT.

Fines of 20s (costs 10s) were inflicted on Henry Pickering and Alexander Maoaskill, who were charged with being illegally in the Rahotu Hotel. The constable visited the hotel on March 30 at 8.45 p.m., and, hearing voices in the bar, the door of which was open, he went in. Pickering and tho licensee were there, and in reply to the constable the former said he was making arrangements to have a concert party taken to Pungarehu. Fifteen minutes later the constable found Macaskill in the sitting room. His excuse for his presence in the hotel was that he had come to see tho licensee about a pair of shoes. William Henry McLeod, Devon McCrone, and Louis Crofskey, charged with being on the licensed premises of tho Opunake Hotel after hours, were each fined 20s, costs 10s. Defendants were first offenders, who were given good characters by the police. “You’ve got a good catch this time,” said Wati Shelford, a Maori, when the constable walked into the back yard of the Rahotu Hotel at 10. JO p.m. on March 30 and found Douglas Ford, Edward Barrett, John Luxmore, and the Maori there. Barrett said he had stepped in to shelter from tho wind while he was on the way to see to his car. There were lights in the kitchen, but the hotel was closed. Defendants, who were all first offenders, were each fined 20s. Charged with exposing liquor for sale after hours, Richard Samuel Jenkin, licensee of the Opunake Hotel, was fined £5 Is and costs. Defendant pleaded not guilty. On the night of the Opunake races (March 17) Constable Clouston was standing talking to a man in the street shortly before midnight when his attention was attracted by people going and coming from the hotel, sometimes in groups of two, sometimes singly and sometimes three or four together. He therefore went to the hotel, finding both the front and the back doors open. There were three young men in the passage, and he could see Jenkin and a man named Clough in the bar. The door of the bar, which had been open, was then closed. The constable went into the bar, and was told that Jenkin was preparing an order which had to go away by the early bus, and that Clough was a boarder who was helping him. Jenkin was certainly handling bottles but tho other man was doing nothing. While the constable was in the hotel

two men came to the back door, where they were accosted by him. The constable, in evidence, said he could see liquor from the passage. The story of tho defendant was that he was. unpacking bottles in the bar, Clough, a boarder and an old friend, wiping the bottles as he handed them out. Clough, w r ho did not know the constable, told Jenkin there was a man in the passage, whereupon Jenkin asked him to shut the door. This was done, and later the constable demanded admittance, which was immediately granted. The Magistrate was satisfied the liquor was exposed, and inflicted a fine of £2, offering to increase it to £5 Is to enable an appeal to bo lodged. This was accepted by defendant. MOTOR VEHICLE OFFENCES. In order to keep an appointment seven miles away, two young men, Arthur Larking and James Burt, borrowed a friend’s car which was parked in their employer’s shed. They filled the tank with benzine and changed the front wheel for one of their own. Next morning they were taxed with taking the car, but denied it. The owner took the car away and locked it in another garage. The defendants persuaded another friend to unlock this one and they then took back their own spare wheel. Subsequently a charge of unlawful conversion was laid against them. In court it was stated that if the [defendants had made a clean breast of tho matter when taxed first no infor--1 mation would have been laid • The Magistrate said the case was really the consequence of telling lies. He I pointed out the seriousness of tho of- ! fence with which the defendants were [charged, and fined them 40s (costs 17s Cd) each. Driving down a hill against lights which prevented him from seeing properly, Albert James Kerr crashed into a motor lorry coming towards him. The lorry driver alleged that Kerr had not given him sufficient room to pass, and

Kerr admitted going 20 to 30 miles per hour. A charge of negligence laid against Kerr was upheld by the Magistrate, who fined him £1 and costs, remarking that he appreciated Kerr’s action in pleading guilty instead of setting up a defence which might have contained a great deal of untruth, DANCING ON THE GREEN. On condition that he took out another prohibition order against himself, Thomas Patrick McKenna was ordered to pay costs only on charges of being unlawfully on a racecourse and of breaking the terms of his prohibition order. It appeared that on St. Patrick’s Day, which fell before McKenna’s prohibition order had expired, “Pat” met some old Irish cobbers, Your Worship” he had not seen since the war. Overcome by sentimental associations of the meeting and of the day, he had a few drinks with them. As a result ho became rather disorderly. Ho went to the Opunake races and tripped the light fantastic toe around the bandstand to the strains of the music. In so doing he caused some annoyance to the people standing near. He was ordered oft’ the course and later had to be taken home in a taxi. He had several previous convictions against him, and, as a person convicted of assault, he was debarred from attending '■ace meetings. The Magistrate gave him the choice of a 40s fine Oi’ another prohibition order. CIVIL CASES. Judgment by default was given for plaintiff in the following civil cases: E. M. Reynolds v. Tai Ngaia, £l6 Ils (costs £3 3s); same v. J. Mischefski, £2 3s lOd (£1 13s (id); Opunake Town Board v. M. J. Connell, £6 0s 6d (£1 (3s 6d); S. Norcross v. J. Mischefski, £5 19s 7d (£1 10s 6d); J. Murphy v. D. Dines, £9 3s (£4 4s); A. McDonald v. Wi Matahaere, I9s 3d (£1 Is); E. M. Reynolds v. EL Wasley, £2 18s 4d (£1 10s 6d); John Fea ver v. Annie Waiau, £2 3s 3d (17s).

At the suit of White’s Ltd., E. T. Northeote was ordered to pay £2 9s 4d forthwith, in default two days’ imprisonment. Kupe Wharehoka was ordered to pay £1 per month to J. Stanovich, off a debt of £4 4s, and a similar sum to Mary Beckbessinger, off a debt of £7 16s Od.