MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19511, 9 June 1933, Page 11

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TIMARU, THURSDAY, JUNE 8. (Before Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M.) By-Law Cases. Leonard Kane pleaded guilty a charge of driving a car in Evans Street at a speed which might be dangerous to the public. Inspector Newcome gave evidence that defendant had pulled out of a line I of traffic returning from a race meeting, and had continued out of alignment at a speed of between 30 and 35 miles per hour. A fine of £1 and costs 10/- was imposed. Michael John Driscoll did not appear to answer a charge of driving without a license. Inspector D. Cameron stated that he had stopped defendant, who at first said he had left his license at home, but later admitted chat he did not have one. Defendant was fined 15/-, and costs 12/-. For cycling at night without a light, Ernest Moore was fined 10/- and costs 11/-, and on a similar charge John McKerchar was fined 10/- and costs 12/-. Maintenance Case. Desmond George Geddes Horgan, who was £l9/5/- in arrear with payments of a maintenance order, was convicted and admitted to probation for a year, on condition that he complies with the terms of the order to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer. Breach of Probation. A charge of failing to pay an amount of £l/5/3 witnesses’ expenses, within six months under the terms of his probationary license, was preferred against Elwood Cuthbertson, who did not i appear. Mr E. C. J. Foot testified that the (mount had not been paid. The Magistrate: *This man, I understand, is now serving a term of two ears’ imprisonment.” He added that there was no point in incurring ex- . penses in bringing the man down to Timaru, and he could only sentence 1 him to another term of imprisonment. Defendant was convicted and discharged. False Declaration. James Gibson Fraser pleaded guilty to a charge of making a false declaration of income under the Unemployment Board’s form U.B. 32. For the Department, Mr Foot said hat defendant, in filling in the form, had made a nil return against a clause inquiring particulars of income derived by the family from boarders and lodgers, but he had had two children boarded out at his house from whom he had received 14/-. The case was brought with the idea of impressing on applicants for relief the fact that the forms were not to be treated lightly. It made it very difficult if the men were not honest and straightforward with the Department, and the information had to be obtained through other channels. The Magistrate said that the forms were statutory declarations, and it must be brought home to people that they w r ere not to be treated lightly. He did not think that there was any deliberate intention on defendant’s part to mislead the Department, but it was merely carelessness. A fine of £1 and costs 10/- was imposed.