Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

POLICE COURT

FRIDAY, JUNE 15. (Before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) | UNLAWFULLY ON PREMISES. I vor Robert Prescott was fined 10s and costs tor being unlawfully on licensed premises after hours. SCAFFOLDING REGULATIONS. For electing a scaffold without a permit, James Donaldson, who pleaded guilty, was fined 30s and costs, the magistrate stating that he would treat the case as one of carelessness on the part of the defendant. .MOTORISTS’ OFFENCES. A charge against William Casey of operating a lorry without a heavy traffic license was dismissed. Charles Carter, who appeared voluntarily, was fined £1 and costs (3s) for causing an obstruction, and was ordered to pay 3s costs for driving without a license. John Duncan Gilroy was charged with operating a car without proper brakes, Inspector M'Dowell stating that be ran into a mob ot cattle. Gilrov was lined £2 10s and costs. "William Henry Goss was fined 10s and costs lor employing an unlicensed driver. Philip Kitchener Barling, who pleaded guilty to negligently driving a motor car, was fined £2 10s and costs. William James Henry Heaps, who was involved in a collision with Barling, was fined 12s as court costs for driving without a license, the police stating that there was no suggestion of negligent or improper driving in his case. ~ , Eross Matheson. Henrv Pledger, Frederick Mouat, Henry Charles Marshall, and Elijah Mullenger, all of whom appeared voluntarily, were fined 3s and costs (3s) for driving without licenses. William Vernon Arthur, similarly charged, was fined ss. no costs. Harold Hall was fined ss, with the usual costs (Ids). Cyril Kingston Smith was convicted only. NEIGHBOURS’ DISPUTE. Leonard Joseph M'Evoy was charged with destroying a fence erected by Amelia Francis and Florence Francis (,[. C. Robertson) on or adjacent to their property at Macandrew Bay.—Counsel said that defendant was notified regarding the erection of the fence and was given the requisite twenty-one clays to object, but he failed to do so. When the fence was erected the defendant immediately chopped it down with an axe. Counsel described the defendant as being a violent and unmannerly neighbour. Counsel suggested that M'Evoy be asked for sureties of the peace and that compensation be given for damages to the fence. After hearing the defendant, the Magistrate said that he thought M'Evoy should have an opportunity of consulting a solicitor and seeing if some arrangements could not be effected. He would adjourn the case for a fortnight, and in the meantime would make no order. His Worship warned the defendant that he was not to cause any trouble. CHARGE AGAINST CHEMIST DISMISSED. William Power Clifford vvas charged with selling paraffin below standard. He was represented by Mr E. J. Anderson and pleaded not guilty. For the Department of Health, Mr W. D. Taylor said that an inspector called at the defendant’s shop and purchased a bottle of paraffin, informing the seller that it was required for the purposes of analysis. It was divided into three parts—one to be retained by the vendor, one sealed for the Government analyst, and one to be retained bv the inspector. Mr Taylor then detailed the tests for purity as laid down by the British Pharmacopoeia of 1932. The paraffin was tested for viscosity (fluidity) and. according to the regulations, should have flowed from a Redwood viscometer in not less than 260 sec. This particular test, however, flowed from the viscometer in I99sec. The department consequently held that the regulations had not been complied with. Lionel Harry James, Governihent Analyst at Dunedin,, produced a certificate of his analysis, which substantiated the statement of Mr Taylor. To Mr Anderson, witness admitted that the sample left with Mr Clifford was not sufficient to test by means of the redwood viscometer, but that the same result could be achieved by the use of a “U ” tube. The previous Pharmacopoeia ’ was issued in 1914, and the manner of test was not prescribed therein. Apart from this' question of viscosity there was no suggestion that the paraffin was impure. Mr Anderson submitted that the prosecution must obviously fail. The taking of the samples, in the first place, was wrong. The bottle should have been divided into three equal parts, not necessarily mathematically correct, so that the vendor should have the same opportunity as the Government analyst in having » check analysis made. What had been left with the defendant prohibited a test by way of checking analysis in accordance with the terms of the ‘ Pharmacopoeia.’ He was left with two and a-half fluid ounces, whereas five ounces at least were required. The magistrate said that he did not consider it necessary to call on the defence to give evidence. Reviewing the case, His Worship stated that the Act provided that, where an analysis was to be made, the sample should be divided into three parts. Only one method of test was prescribed, and this was done by Mr James. It was also provided that the sample left with the vendor should also be able to he analysed in the same form, but the sample left with the defendant in this particular case would not reach the filling point of the viscometer, and he was unable to make a test. The prosecution claimed that it was not necessary to use a viscometer, and that a U tube could bo used and the tests afterwards converted into the terms of a viscometer. His Worship was quite unable to see that the defendant should be called upon to do this. The charge was dismissed.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19340615.2.102

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 21747, 15 June 1934, Page 10

Word count
Tapeke kupu
917

POLICE COURT Evening Star, Issue 21747, 15 June 1934, Page 10

POLICE COURT Evening Star, Issue 21747, 15 June 1934, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert