MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 22 May 1930, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, MAY 22.

(Before W. Meklrum, Esq., S.M.)

RESERVED DECISION

Reserved judgment was given ii

the case of AnucrsOn ('Mr Murdoch) v. South Westland Shipping Coy. (Mr El cock). hi is Worship held that the cause of dismissal was itfyo inability to replace the engineer who was leaving. The Master had failed to notify the Company that the engineer was leaving until the vessel reached Hoidtika. It was utterly impossible for the boat to proceed, aiijd tlio Captain was guilty' of negligence in not properly notifying the owner. There was no definite arrangement between the Captain and owner as to the termination of the appointment. Plaintiff was non-suited with costs Bs, witnesses £2 4s lOd, solicitor £3 3s. Security for appeal was fixed at £2O.

Police v. N. 13. Manson failure to pay maintenance order. No order made, further adjourned for three months.

. Ail application for a prohibition order was granted against a local resident on the application of his wife.

The Borough Inspector (Mr Park), charged Amelia Steel with using a motor car without a tail light. Fined 5s and costs 10s, solicitor 10s 6d. damage to lorry. Polico v. Clifford Orossley Hende (Mr Joyce), a charge of illegally taking a lorry uway at Ivokatahi on 9th April.

Defendant pleaded not guilty. Sergeant King stated thu.t on the 9th April last there was a ball at Kokatahi and a young man named Stephens who has a motor lorry took a party to Kokatahi. The lorry was parked' outside the hall. An hour later the lorry had disappeared. Some time later the defendant came back considerably knocked about. He made a complaint to a Constable that he had seen .some one taking away the lorry. He had tried, to stop him and had been struck over the head with a bottle. The lorry was subsequently found in the river where it had gone over the Ibank. The lorry was considerably damaged. It would bo shown that defendant knew how to start this lorry but did not know how to drive it. They would , endeavour to show that defendant alone was responsible for the damage. Albert Edward Stephens gave evidence that he was the owner of a lorry. On 9th April he drove a party of friends to Kokatahi. It had a hood, covered with canvas, with seats fixed to the floor. Defendant was one of the party. He was not in the employ of witness. He was in the habit of going around with witness who showed defendant how to start the lorry and work the gears. For a fortnight he had been doing this. He was able to start it, but could not stop it. At Kokatahi he left the lorry on the road facing towards the river. Gave no authority for anyone to use the lorry. Defendant went to the dance with witness. About two apd a half hours later was informed the lorry was gone. Later on found it in the river, with the lights still going, in the water. The lorry had the chassis 'bent, steerinjg wheel was broken, the windscreen was smashed, hood wrenched off and other damage estimated to cost £3O to £SO. Saw defendant was out about the head and Angers. To Mr Joyce; It was showery in the early part of the evening. On several occasions defendant sat in the driver's seat when the lorry was running. There were no lights on the lorry where he parked it. Defendant was bleeding profusely when he saw him.

Constable Drummond gave evidence that about 11.30 p.m. on the date in question he was at the Kokatahi Public Hall, when he saw defendant at the door.. Found Hende, whose face and body was covered with blood, bleeding profusely from a wound in? the head. He said lie hue. been lying in Stephens’, lorry when ho had .been assaulted with a blunt weapon and the lorry was taken away. Took defendant to the hotel. He had a cut on the head one and a half inches long. Defendant stated the lorry had gone towards tile river. Found the lorry in the river. It had apparently been driven over the bank about eight feet deep into one of the streams of the river. Made enquiries, and concluded that the driver must have been forced through the windscreen. AA'ent back to the hotel about 1 a.m. Defendant was in bed and said he knew nothing more than ho had said. He denied taking the lorry. Defendant’s boots and socks were soaked with water, Next day saw defendant who made a statement, which he refused to sign. The following clay defendant attempted to demonstrate how he had got out ol the lorry, and had been assaulted by the driver. Defendant admitted that ho had five drinks of shandy that night after arrival at Kokatahi. He was about 17 years of age. The cuts were clear sharp cuts. It was impossible to get through the hood to the cab as be stated lie had done. To Mr Joyce: The wound on the forehead was a clean incised one. He found a hat belonging to AVhiley in tbo lorry, who was in the hall at the time the lorry was taken.

Gavin Gumming gave evidence he was 18 years of age and was a shop assistant at Renton and Co.’s. He went to Kokatahi dance in Stephens’ lorry. AA’ent to the dance. Also went to the hotel and had a drink. Hende did not drive the lorry that night. This was the case for the police. Mr Joyce said there was no case to

connect the defendant with the cnarge. His Worship said the evidence was entirely presumptive. There was no evidence of how the lorry came to land in the river. He thought the defendant should explain how he got hurt.

Air Joyce then called evidence. Clifford Hende, une defendant, gave evidence that he was working for Stephens’ on 9th April. He had only had Hie steering of the • lorry once, when he sat beside the driver. He had never started or stopped the lorry at any time. Ho had never driven a car. At Kokatahi after arrival he had one drink, and then went to the half. He then went to the Longford Hotel and had four drinks. Then went back to the hall and went to the lorry and went to sleep in the lorry. The lorry then went on and witness got a knock and all he remembers after that was that he was in bed in the hotel, eariv next morning. His head was still bad. He saw Dr Baird two days after and he gave the certificate produced. He had no recollection after faking out of the lorry. He was not in the cab of the lorry that night and did not know who took the lorry away. He git his hat and coat next morning. He was not in the river that night. Had a gravel cut on the • (hand wilier© the skin was knocked off. The only mark on his body was a Ibruise he received at work a ' couple of days before. was unab'H to drive a lorry. To Sergeant King: He was for scepnens for about a fortnight. It was not correct as Stephens stated that he had allowed witness to start and run the lorry. Had • a shandy at Furlong’s; About an hour later went to Longford Hotel and had four that he remembered. AYhen he oame back, he laid on his .back on tiie seat in the lorry, When h© woke up lie-did not remember what he did. He must have gob the cuts on liis face from a fall from the lorry. He did not remember telling Drummond next mornin’g that witness had crawled out of the lorry and that the man had hit him on the head with a bottle. He did not rememlber making the statement to the Constable that he had written. He did not know; how he - had received tile injury to his head. H'e mentioned to Dr Baird that he had been hit by a bottle. Witness remembered endeavouring at Kirwin’s garage to show how he crawled out of the lorry. He had to show the Sergeant something. He had later stated that lie did not know what happened. To Mr Joyec.: The first thing lie knew, lyas next day when he came

round. Kathleen Furlong gave evidence that she knew the defendant Hende. She saw the lorry going down the road. The gears were changed as it started, and again changed down the road, when well, over the culvert. Saw the defendant when he came into the hotel. Did not consider the defendant would have time to have gone to the river and back after lorry •started towards the river. To Sergeant King: It was going fairly fast after it started; Heard no disturbance or saw any scuffling, Mr Joyce submitted that on the evidence there was no actual proof. His Worship said the case was a very unsatisfactory one. The suspicion was very strong, hut there was just a possibility that the lorry had been taken by someone else. The defendant would be given the benefit of the doubt, and the charge would be dismissed. The Police charged George Stephens, senr., (Mr Murdoch) with allowing billiards to be played by a person under age. Constable Best gave evidence of visiting the Elite " billiard saloon. There saw James Maloney playing billiards with Freitas. George Stephens. jr.. was present. Maloney v r as 17 years of age. To Air Muruoeli: Defendant camG in later on. He told defendant that his son had been in charge of the room while he went to dinner. The defendant, George Stephens said lie was just about to take over the Elite billiard room. He did not know the young man had been playing billiards till after the Constable’s visit.

His Worship said it was not disputed that the defendant did ifet know the boy was present and therefore there was no offence. The charge would be dismissed. ALLEGED GAMING HOUSE. The Police charged John Lawrence Turner with keeping a common gaming house in Itevell Street and in Weld Street. Mr Murdoch for defendant and Detectiv© -March prosecuted. A charge was also laid against Margaret Turner of assisting in keeping a common gaming house. Mr Murdoch said in connection with the charge against J. L. Turner of the Re veil Street sliop that he intended to plead guilty. The two charges, one against J. L. Turner and one against Margaret Turner of keeping a gaming house in AVeld Street and,of assisting, were then proceeded with. (Left Sittirg).