MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18541, 11 April 1930, Page 10

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TIMARU—APRIL 10. (Before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M.) By-Law Cases. Frederick William Wilson did not appear to answer a charge of cutting a corner in a motor-car, and was convicted and fined 20/-, with costs 12/-. David Roper, charged with riding a bicycle on the footpath in College Road, was convicted and fined 10/-, with costs 10/-. License Cancelled. Philip James Shanks was charged with driving a motor-cycle along Waiiti Road in a manner which might be dangerous to the public. Assistant-Traffic Inspector Colville estimated the speed at 35 miles per hour. Defendant had a passenger on the back of the machine, and when accosted was inclined to treat the matter as a joke. A fine of £3 and costs was imposed, and defendant’s current license was cancelled. Race Day Case. Michael Brophy (Mr W. Scott) did not appear to answer a charge of having on March Bth. driven a car along Evans Street in a manner which might be dangerous to the public. On hearing the evidence of Traffic Inspector Newcome, the Magistrate said the breach was nc< a serious one, and fined defendant 10/-, with costs. Three Charges. The charges against Frederick George Hedges were: (1) Failing to stop his motor vehicle when requested to do so by a constable; (2) failing to produce his driver’s license; and (3) driving a motor-car along Stafford Street at night without lights. Defendant pleaded not guilty to the first charge, and guilty to the others. Constable Devlin stated that he could not say if Hedges saw him signal to stop or not. The first charge was dismissed, but on the second and third defendant was convicted and fined 5/- and costs 10/-, and 20/- and costs 10/-, respectively. Licensing Breaches. John Christmas pleaded guilty to a charge of being found on the premises of the R,oyal Hotel after hours. He pleaded guilty and was fined 20/-, with costs 10/-. Rongamai Carter was charged that, not being the holder of a publican’s license in respect to the Royal Hotel, she did supply liquor after hours. Mr W. Raymond appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty. Charges against Frederick Carter, the licensee, were: (1) Selling liquor after hours; (2) exposing liquor for sale after hours; (3) opening licensed premises for the sale of liquor after hours. Mr Raymond entered a plea of not guilty. Sergeant Gilligan said that in company with Constable Hogg, he visited the Royal Hotel at 7.30 p.m. on March 20th. Christmas was in the bar with a half-consumed glass of whisky in front of him, having been served by Miss Carter, who was also in the bar. The licensee was not present, but came downstairs a few minutes later. To Mr Raymond: He saw no other signs of liquor about the hotel. Rongomai Carter said that when Christmas came into the hotel, witness was in the office with her brother. Christmas said he had a cold, and asked to be obliged with a drink. Witness agreed to give him a drink, and took him into the bar, which she left closed but unlocked. Her father, who was upstairs at the time, left her in possession of the keys, in view of the fact that there were two boarders in the house. The licensee had told her never to serve anyone after hours, but in view of the fact that Christmas was a friend of the family’s and had a cold, she agreed to give him a drink. Frederick Carter, the licensee, said he had held a license for over 16 years, and had never had a conviction for such an offence.

Mr Raymond said that previously the licensee had given the police no cause for complaint, and his good record was known to not only the police but to the public. Under the circumstances he was of opinion that Carter was morally innocent in respect to his daughter’s action, and he asked that the Magistrate exercise his power under Section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act, and not enter a conviction.

Inspector A. S. Bird said that in the past the Royal Hotel had been well conducted, and there had been no complaints concerning after-hour trading. The Magistrate said that the licensee was held responsible. The case was not a serious one. and in view of Carter’s previous unblemished record he would not make the penalty a heavy one. Rongomai Carter would be fined £2 and costs 10/-; and on the first charge the licensee would be fined 10/- and costs 10/-. The other two charges were withdrawn. Breach of Order. John George Seyb. a prohibited person, was charged with being found on the premises of the Doncaster Hotel, Washdyke. The Magistrate said that defendant had been twice previously fined for similar breaches, and would have to be taught a lesson. He was fined £5 and costs. Lice Infected Sheep. John McGaw and James Smith were each fined 30/- and costs for exposing lice-infected sheep for sale at the Pleasant Point stock yards. Samuel Kingston, who had been previously convicted in 1925, was similarly charged, and was fined £3 and costs. The Stock Inspector (Mr W. Scott) said that none of the cases was serious. Alleged “Short-Weight.” The Inspector of Weights and Mea-

sures (Mr G. MoKessar) proceeded against J. H. Craig (Mr Emslie), on a charge of providing firewood short of the measure ordered. A plea of not guilty was entered. A. G. Bateman. College Road, said he ordered a cord of firewood from Craig*, and was not satisfied that he had been given correct measure. He later interviewed Craig, who admitted that the wood was a quarter of a cord short, and said he would send the remainder up in a day or two. The wood was delivered on a vacant section a few feet away from the house. To Mr Emslie: His wife paid for the wood on delivery. He came home at 5 o’clock and stacked the wood. It would have been impossible for any of the wood to go astray, as it was in view of his wife, who was at home all the afternoon. When he interviewed Craig he made the complaint that the wood was short in weight, and Craig promised to bring along a quarter of a cord. This he did not do. Craig’s excuse was that he did not bring the full weight because the bad bump before entering the section would have been hard on hir. lorry. The Inspector stated that he measured the wood a few days after it had been delivered, and found 62 cubic feet instead of 84 cubic feet. The b'r>cks were on an average about 2ft high. Recalled Bateman stated that the wood as measured by him was about 2ft Bin to 2ft lOin in height. Mr Emslie said the usual practice for wood-dealers was to cut 128 feet of wood in 3i feet lengths. When the wood was cut down it usually measured 104 feet, which was slightly over the cord. The Magistrate said he could not convict on the conflicting evidence. It was possible even for someone to have removed a portion of the wood. The case would be dismissed. Sequel To Accident. As a result of an accident at the intersection of Catherine and Victoria Streets, on March 6, 1930, in which a motor-car and motor-cycle were involved, Donald McPhee, the driver of the car (Mr W. H. Walton), was charged with failing to give way to a motorcycle approaching from his right. He pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant Mathieson conducted the case for the police, and evidence for the prosecution was given by K. Tooth, rider of the cycle and Constable Devlin, who took measurements after the accident.

Defendant was cross-examined at some length, and corroborative evidence was given by George Wilson, engineer, a passenger in the car. The Magistrate held that, under the regulations, in view of the possibility of a collision, defendant should have given w r ay. He was not considering the rights of the parties civilly, but under the circumstances it seemed the obvious thing to do for the motor-cyclist to swing out to the right. Defendant would be convicted and fined 10/-, with costs 34/-. Dangerous Driving. Trithiof Jakobson (Wellington), who conducted his own case, pleaded not guilty to a charge of having on March 16, driven a motor-car along Caroline Bay viaduct in a manner which might be dangerous to the publio. Traffic Inspector C. Newcome said he saw defendant coming through the viaduct at a speed of at least fifteen miles an hour. There were several people about at the time. Witness had j called out to the driver that he should have travelled through the viaduct in j low gear, to which defendant replied: “I’m driving this car, and not you.” In reply to defendant, witness considered that fifteen miles an hour was a dangerous speed to travel through I the viaduct. He had had ten years’ experience in estimating speeds, and was quite competent to judge. Corroborative evidence as to the speed was given by Sinclair Wright, a Council employee in charge of cars on Caroline Bay. who estimated the speed at between fifteen and twenty miles an hour. Robert Stewart, a passenger in the car, said that the vehicle had been travelling at about eight to ten miles per hour. His estimate was based on driving experience over a period of twelve years. Defendant said he would have stopped for the inspector had he recognised who he was, and thought he had anything to answer for. Proceeding up the viaduct, his speed would be five or six miles per hour. He admitted he was in top gear. The Magistrate said that the locality was a- dangerous one. The Inspector’s estimate was made at the time of the event, and Mr Stewart’s afterwards. The offence was a nominal one, and a fine of 10/- with costs 15/-, was imposed. Case Dismissed. Lena Blackwell (Mr L. J. O’Connell) proceeded against her husband. Bernard Lewis Blackwell (Mr L. M. Inglis), for a separation, maintenance and guardianship order in respect to herself and her two children, on the grounds of failure to maintain, and habitual inebriation. Complainant stated the parties had been married on June 28. 1926, and got on quite well until the first baby was born and her husband purchased a car, in which he used to visit Chertsey and leave witness with the baby at his mother’s home. Her husband had been arrested for drunkenness in charge of the car at Ashburton, and had been fined £l3, and i J .ad his license cancelled. In August. 1928, when witness had been living with her mother at Otaio, witness. as a result of a visit there, had been convicted of being on enclosed premises without authority, and had been released on probation under certain conditions. Her husband had been imprisoned for a breach of his probation. Witness had been forced to work to maintain herself, and for the past nine months had received no support for herself. She did not desire to go ; back to her husband, because he was unable to provide a. home. To Mr Inglis: Witness had not asked her husband for money. He had paid all that was required under the terms of his probation, prior to being imprisoned. Her husband had asked her twice to go to a home with him, but she had refused to do so.

Mr Inglis: “If your husband was prepared to rent a house in Ashburton, would you. go?”

Witness: “No.” Mr Inglis: “That’s the trouble. You don’t want to live with him.” The Magistrate said that before granting a separation, some good reason would have to be rlicwn" why the wife could not go back. Under the circumstances the husband had no case to answer. He was quite prepared to maintain his wife in addition to the children. The case would be dismissed.