MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16737, 19 May 1922, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CHRISTCHUROH, TO-DAY’S CASES. e Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M.. presided | at the Maigstrate’s Court to-day. DRUNKENNESS. A first offender for drunkenness was fined 10s. in default 24 hours’ imprisonment. COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. Albert Gundy, aged 21, was charged with the theft of a motor-car, valued a*t £601), the property of Murdoch Patcr.von Murray. Mr R. Iwyneliam appeared for accused. Chief Detective A. Cameron said that complainant knew the relatives of accused. Accused, who had no interest in complainant's car, was hired to drive it lor the sum of £4 per week. He sold the car for £125 to a Mr Ohisnall and cleared out to Sydney. Evidence was given by complainant, that accused had applied to him for a position. Witness possessed a Renault car, so witness told him when lie came to him about Labour Day, 1920, that lie would give him a hand to get a start by allowing him to put the car on the taxi stand for a couple of months. Accused procured a license and started work on the understanding that he was to take £4 a week out ol the earnings. An extra amount was fixed for expenses. Accused had no property in the car. Witness had received no money from accused. Later witness missed accused and the car, and reported the matter to the police. He next saw the car in a coach-build-er’s yard. Walter Charles Chisnall, fish merchant, gave evidence that he had known accused as a taxi driver in 1920. A friend told him that Cundy wanted to sell the car and .alter a trial witness had bought it. Cundy sold the car as his own. Detective James Bickerdike gave the Court the results of his enquiries into the case. On May 15 last on the way to the Court, accused said. “ Two crooks, one named George, while I had the car, persuaded me to sell it.” He afterwards went to Sydney with them where, he said, they beat him for £IOO of his money and then left him. He said he intended to plead guilty to the charge. “Accused has nothing to sav at present,” said Mr. Twyneham, when the usual charge was rend. Cundy pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. Bail was refused. THE ARMS ACT. E. McDonald, a second-hand dealer, was charged that on April 7, he procured pot»evssion of a fire arm—a re-volver—-without having a permit. Defendant said he had taken tb© revolver round to the police to have it registered. Continuing he said he had once hunted all over the hills to identify a man for the police and he had had to pay all his own expenses, and yet when he made a little slip, the police were down on him in an instant. The Magistrate said that breaches of the Arms Act might have such farreaching effects that he could not pass them over with a nominal penalty. Accused would he fined 40s and costs, and the revolver was forfeited. “ That will withdraw it from circulation.” said th© Magistrate. Arnold Wilfred Shrimpton was charged with carrying a revolver beyond the limits of his dwelling-house without a license. Sergeant J. O'Grady said accused had committed an offence in ignorance. Mr. J. R. Cuninham, on behalf of defendant, said Shrimpton had carried the revolver to the Port Hills for the purpose of shooting rabbits. He had lost it and had reported this fact to the police. It was then that lie learned of his wrong doing. I think it will be sufficient for him to pay a, 10« fine and costs.” said the Magistrate. A plea of guilty was entered by George I/angforrl Minifie, that he was found in possession of an unregistered firea rm. Minifie said that he had had the gun given to him some time ago. Tt was rusty and parts were missing. I-Ie had scrapped it since. Kergeant O’Grady hore out the statement that the gun was not in working order. Defendant was fined 10s and costs. WARNING TO PUBLIC. Hie Hurunui Rabbit Trustees proceeded against Thomas Murray, that on A[>; ii 1, at Rollos Road, he left open a swing gate in a rabbit-proof fence. Air \v. J. Sim, appearing for the trustees, said that the information was laid under the Rabbit Act. Tho Act provided for a fine of ia for this ofleuce, but tho Board was not anxious for a heavy fine to he imposed. The trustees wanted, to bring the consequences of neglect over shutting these gates before the public, as the Board was going to strictly enforce the provision m future. There had been a great deal of laxity in the past in this matter, counsel stated, but in this case the Board would be satisfied with a nominal penalty. Mr. Weston, appearing for defendant, pleaded guilty. He said that his client had undoubtedly left tho gate open. All users of the road had been extremely careless in observing the notice. The Magistrate: “He has been following a lax custom.” Mr. Weston: “Yes, Sir.” The Magistrate said provision was made for the protection of farmers and they had been careless of their own interests and everyone else using the gates had been careless too Defendant was fined 20s and costs.