TAIHAPE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 229, 28 September 1931, Page 3

TAIHAPE

MAGISTRATE’S COURT The monthly sitting of the Taihape Magistrate’s Court opened before Mr R. M., Watson, S.M., on Thursday afternoon and concluded the following morning. Breach of Prohibition Order. Jack Mitchell, of Bennett’s Siding, pleaded guilty to a charge of procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order and was fined 40s with costs 15s. He was allowed 14 days in which to pay. Cut Bailway Fence. Kenneth Arthur Needham, painter, of Taihape, was charged with cutting down a railway fence between Mataroa and Taihape on August 28, 1931. He was also charged with trespassing on the railway. Defendant pleaded guilty to both charges. He was represented by Mr W. H. Maclean, who declared that his client had committed a very foolish act which he now fully realised. “Defendant was getting firewood from a paddock at Bennett’s Siding close to the railway line. He had intended to carry the wood from the paddock to his motor lorry on the road, but seeing a “Taranaki gate” he decided that considerable time and labour would be saved if he drove his lorry through the “gate” and so gained access to the paddock by this means. Needham cut the top wire on the “Taranaki gate” and disconnected other wires which had been previously broken and joined, but after passing through the “gate” the lorry got stuck before it was properly across the railway line and the back of the vehicle was struck by a train which happened to appear at that particular time, but fortunately the train was travelling slowly when it struck the lorry and little damage resulted,” stated Mr. Maclean in outlining the facts of the case. Proceeding, counsel stated Needham now realised his position and was not likely to commit such an offence again. He had made a statement to the trailway authorities admitting everything and pleaded guilty. Defendant was prepared to pay for repairs to the fence. Sergeant Joyce remarked that the offence was a serious one and defendant was liable to a fine of £5O. The maximum penalty was £lO. The sergeant added that when the train struck the back of the lorry, the engine and one carriage were damaged to the extent of £3 8s 7d. He had been instructed to press for a heavy penalty. Had the train been carrying passengers, the results might have been very serious. Mr Maclean: Defendant is charged with cutting down the fence whereas he only cut one wire. Sergeant Joyce: He cut the top wire and unfastened the others. The fence was intact before he interfered with it. Within the meaning of the Act, he cut down the fence. The Magistrate remarked that the matter might have been more serious than was actually the case. On the other hand it might have been less seri. ous. The Railway Act provided for a heavy penalty. On the charge of cutting down the fence Needham would bo convicted and fined £2 with court costs, 10s, and ordered to pay for the damage done to the engine and carriage amounting to £3 8s 7d. On the trespassing charge he would be convicted and ordered to pay court- costs, 10s.

Needham asked for time to pay and was allowed 14 days. The police raised no objection, stating that he was a respectable young man. Unlicensed Motor Lorries. H. J. Fowler, traffic inspector to the Rangitikci County Council, proceeded against C. Wright St. Clair on two charges of operating an unlicensed motor lorry on the Taihape-Mataroa road on July 29. Defendant pleaded guilty to both charges. St. Clair was also charged with using a lorry with a defective brake. He entered a plqa of not guilty to this charge. Concerning the first two charges, Mr. Fowler said that the amount in dispute was one month’s fees on each lorry. Defendant: I was put off the road for one month. 1 don’t see why 1 should have to pay for that period. The Magistrate: Defendant used his two lorries for half a month before he was put off the road. Both lorries were unlicensed. Defendant: I was stopped using the lorries on account of the damage they were inflicting upon the road. I was stopped in between months. 1 was off the road half of one month and half of the following month. The Magistrate: If you don’t pay your license fees when they are due you must keep your lorries off the road. 11 you cannot pay the license fees you must not use the lorries. You are like a good many defendants who think that their own cases are special ores. The magistrate, in lining defendant 30s and costs on each charge of operat ing an unlicensed motor lorry, said that ho had taken into consideration the fact that St. Clair had been “put off the road for one month.” On the charge of using a motor lorry with a defective brake, St. Clair was fined 20s -with costs 10s. “Brakes on motor vehicles must be kept in good order,” remarked Mr Watson.