MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Chronicle (Levin), 2 November 1946, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

MONTIILY SITTING AT OTAKI The monthly sitting of the Otaki Magistrate's Court was held on Thursday, when Mr. A. M. Goulding dealt with the following cases: Automatic Pistol William F. Goode was charged with being illegally in possession of an automatic pistol. He pleaded not guilty. Constable Calwell stated that it had been ascertained that Goode was in possession of an automatic pistol. Constable Turnbull supported this, stating that'in October he aecompanied Constable Calwell to Goode's residence on Rangiuru Road, when Goode admitted having an automatic pistol, but when called upon to produce it stated that he could not find it. Latter Goode made a statement to the effect that he had received the pistol from an American soldier. The pistol was produced but Goode emphatically denied that it was his. Nurse Gilmour stated that she, had stayed at Rangiuru and had seen a pistol which had been shown her by the defendant. The pistol (produced) appeared to be the one he had shown her. James Brennell stated that he was a farm hand and had visited Goode's place at Rangiuru. Goode had shown him the firearm, but he had taken no notice of the number or other marks on it. The pistol (produced) seemed to be the one Goode had shown him. Goode stated that he considered the pistol produced , belonged .to witness, but this was denied by witness, who said that he had never owned a pistol similar to that in his life. Constable Calwell stated that l.e had visited Goode's with Constable Turnbull, understanding that Goode was the possessor of an j unregistered firearm. Goode stated that he had had a pistol" but that j it had been stolen, and he was jtherefore unable to produce it. He isuspected the witnesses of taking ! the pistol. Good further stated that the pistol he had had been given him by an American marine about three years ago. One night, said i Goode in his statement, he went to ;the pictures, leaving the two witinesses at his place. Later he dis- ■ covered the pistol missing, and had jhis suspicions. Both witnesses ! denied taking the pistol. He had 'not seen the pistol since. Goode ; had stated that he did not think it was necessary to register the pis- ! toi or to tell the police that it was jin his possession. Constable Cal'well stated that he had shown the | pistol fco Goode who had admitted j that it was his. Later Goode stated ;thc pistol was not nis. Goode: The statement produced is not mine. Charles Goode asked to make a statement on behalf of his son but this was denied him by Mr. Goulding, who said the son could give evidence on oath. Goode on oath again denied that the pistol was his, adding that the statement submittcd was not his either. He was a poor. scholar, could hardly read or write, but still he knew the statement was not his. It was pointed out that Goode had signed it, but Goode still maintained that the statement was not his. He stated that he had never seen the pistol (produced) . The S.M. stated that he was satisfied that the pistol produced was Goode's. He would be fined 10s, costs 16s. Breach. of Maintenance Manu Nicholls, who was charged with a breach of his maintenance orders, was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment, the order to be suspended as long as he paid arrears at the rate of 10s per week in addition to current maintenance. Civil Alfred Blackmore (Mr. Atmore) v. H. H. Cutting, claim £5 and possession. — Defendant stated that as a result of being unable to get a house he had taken possession, previously making exhaustive enquiries for a place. Mr. Atmore, for plaintiff, stated that the defendant had taken ( possession, whereon the S.M. remarked that Cutting had no right to have done so, but that on account of the death of the owner of the house the case would be adjourned till the December 5 sitting. R. and E. Price (Mr. Atmore) v. P. Clifton, claim £6 ls 6d. — There was no appearance of defendant who was ordered to pay the amount forthwith, in default seven days' imprisonment. The case of A. R. Knox v. L. R. Benseman, in a claim for £16 ls was adjourned for a month. Diamond Hart, Ltd., v. M. Bruning, claim £8 6s. — Bruning stated that he was married with a family of ten, the ages ranging from 16 years downward. One son only was working but he was allowed a family allowance for the others. He himself had started market gardening. He paid no rent but had to pay £8 a year rates. — No order was made. The case of E. A. Fogden v. P. Cootes, claim £4 18s 6d, was ad j ourned for a month.