OTAKI S.M. COURT

Chronicle (Levin), 13 July 1946, Page 2

OTAKI S.M. COURT

THURSDAY'S SITTING The monthly sitting of the Otaki Magistrate's Court was held on Thursday before Mr. A. M.' Goulding, S.M. The following cases were heard: — Supplied Meat Without Coupons N. D. Thompson faced a charge of supplying meat without a permit. Mr. Birks appeared on behalf of his defcartment and Mr. B. H. Rhodes for the defendant, who pleaded guilty. It was, stated that defendant had failed to comply with the regulations relative to providing the necessary coupons, in that he had offered to supply meat to a camping party of about 250, offering carcases of mutton at 30s per body. Coupons had been offered but were not considered necessary, While later the defendant had stated that he was making a gift of the mutton, and there wouid be no charge. The camp, it was stated, got meat in excess of coupons offered. Mr. Rhodes stated that defendant did not offer to sell the meat — the agreement was mutual, and therefore, the price of the meat had not been arranged. Some £6 worth of coupons had been offered, and later another 30s worth; therefore, the loss was very light. Counsel for the prosecution stated that a live animal could have been sold on which there would have been no restriction, but that if dead animals were sold, coupons would be necessary. Mr Rhodes maintained that no profit had been made by the sale of the carcases. Further, the prosecution was the first of its kind in the district, and' he thought it would act as a warning, especially as defendant was a reputable farmer with no previous convictions. It was, he considered, a borderline case, and defendant had even gone out of his way to assist and to be generous. He thought there were special circumstances for leniency. Mr. Goulding, although admitting that the regulations had been broken, accepted the statement that defendant was a reputable resident, and had no wish to make profit. However, having broken the regulations a fine would be inflicted. This was fixed at £3, with costs v12s and solicitor's fee £1 ls. Traffic Breaches Charged with driving a motor vehicle for which he possessed the wrong class of driver's iicense, John Stratt pleaded guilty and was fined £2, with costs 12s. For Stratt, Mr. B. H. Rhodes stated that a member of the firm had taken suddenly ill, and as it was a matter of urgency defendant had gone • to a^-ist. He had acted without the knowledge of his employer. For exceeding the speed limit N. Foreman was fined £4, with costs 12s. Evidence in support of the charge was given by Inspector Peters. On a charge of aidine and abetting the offence, J. M. Gould, Ltd.. were ordered to pay costs. For exceeding the speed limit Brian Derenzi Gardiner paid a penalty of £4, with costs 12s. Inspector Peters stated that he followed defendant for some distance, and found that he had done up to 60 m.p.h. When questioned, Gardiner offered no excuse. Exceeding 30 m.p.h. in a restricted area cost Robert Maurice Mitchell £3, with costs 12s. Inspector Peters estimated Mitchell's speed at 40 m.p.h. Charged with exceeding the speed limit in a heavy motor vehicle, Graham Leslie Everton was fined £4, with costs 12s. The estimated speed in a restricted area was 38 m.p.h. John Joseph Jones was fined £5, with costs 12s, for failing to carry a warrant of fitness. Inspector Peters stated that when he stopped the car it was found to be \yithout a light, and Jones had no warrant of fitness. A charge of driving without due care and attention against Made-_ line Elizabeth Lance was dismissed." Constable Calwell stated that, following a telephone call, he saw the cv full of ladies, who were on their way to Wellington. The car had gone off the road, had turned over twice and suffered damage. The day was fine, visibility good and the car in first-class condition. Defendant stated that she had been a driver -for the past 18 years and her speed was about the average — up to 42 m.p.h. Counsel for defendant, Mr. Atmore, maintained that it could not be said that defendant was driving without due care and attention, and this was borne out by the Magistrate, who dismissed the charge. Claim for Work Done S. E. Bowker, J. S. Mullens and J. Logan proceeded against J. M. Gould, Ltd. (Mr. Rhodes) on a claim for work done. Following the hearing of a good deal of evidence the case was adjourned to be heard later in Wellington. Civil Business H. J. Arcus (Mr. Rhodes) v. F. J. Richardson £3 7s. — Judgment by default, with costs 22s 6d.