MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 23 February 1932, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREYMOUTH SITTING. GREY-MOUTH, February, 2.3. At Llie Magistrate’s Court yesterday before Mr W. Meldrum S.M., the business dealt with included: THEFT CHARGE FAILS. A plea of not guilty was entered by Janies Albert Essex, 46, who was charged that, on February 11, at Greymouth, he stole a sack containing two rolls of bacon and six luuns, ol the total value ol' £5/19/2, the property ol the Self-Help Co-operative Co. Ltd. Mr T. F. Brosnan appeared for accused, who elected to be dealt with summarily. Detective-Sergeant Holmes stated that a. sack of bacon fell from a lorry at the corner of Maekay and Tarape hi Streets, and was dragged across to the footpath by the Inspector ol Police. The sack was branded “S.H.” over “G.” and a tie-on label was affixed to it, on which was clearly written, “Self-Help, Greymouth.” Accused found the sack, and carried it five chains to his home. He admitted that he told no one about it. When located, the sack had been opened, and an overcoat had been placed over it. Accused stated that he was holding the sack, in the hope that it would be advertised for, and that be would get a reward., Part of a tie-on label was found in the sack on the following day. Imt it had not been proved to be part of the original label.

Evidence for the prosecution was given by Hugh Morgan, lorry driver; Inspector Fitzpatrick; Detective A 1 urch : and Allan Holcroft, manager of the Self-Help. Mr Brosnan submitted that guilty intention had not been proved. The worst tliat could be said of accused’s action was that it was foolish in the extreme. He asked that accused s name be suppressed. The S.M., after reviewing the evidence, said that the circumstances were suspicious, owing to the loss of the label. It was not clearly proved nor could it he assumed, that the part of the label found in the sack was the remainder of the original label, and that it had been removed by accused. As counsel had pointed out, accused had held responsible positions, and had served over 13 years in the army, receiving a good discharge. Looking at the matter in the way a jury would look at it, there was ground for doubt that accused intended to steal the sack. He was entitled to the benefit of that doubt, and the charge would he dismissed.

AN ASSAULT CHARGE. “It appears to he one ol those cases in which two men have an instinctive antipathy’ towards one another, and cannot meet without sparks flying,’ said the S.M., after hearing the evidence iii the case wherein, on - the information of the police, .John Joseph McGrath and William Henderson were charged with fighting each other in a public place, Herd Street, Duuollie, on January 30. Henderson pleaded “guilty, under provocation,” which was regarded as a plea of not guilty. He conducted his own defence. McGrath pleaded not, guilty, and was represented hv Mr T. F. Brosnan. The Senior-Sergeant said that the defendants had been before the Court' on at least two previous occasions, under similar circumstances. They seemed to fight, whenever they met. and it seemed to he a ((nestion ol one considering himself superior to the other, in fistic ability. On January 30. they arrived from Greymouth in the bus. Apparently, some remarks were passed between them in the bus, and they fouglit when they got out. The fight continued until McGrath was knocked out. After making the remarks previously quoted, tin 1 S.M. said that it appeared in the present case, that McGrath was Heated somewhat severely. Had it been an ordinary case of a light, probably there may not have been much between them, and they would have been stopped without harm to either; hut it way admitted by Henderson that he used a stone, and that he probably “put the boot in” also. That was rather an un-British way of conducting a fight, and would have to he taken into consideration when apportioning the penalties. McGrath appeared to have used provocative language, and lie was. to a certain extent to blame. MrGraih would be lined II!/-, with ill/- costs, and would be bound over to keep jjie peace tows ids Henderson for 12 months. Henderson would lie lined £3. with Ri/iosts and l'l 3,- witnesses' expenses. an,| v, nel l i lie brnind over to keep the pi ■■(•,. towards McGrath for 12 months. Henderson asked for time in which to pay, and was allowed seven days, the default being fixed at ten days’ imprisonment. j

COAL MINES ACT. I!KGKCATIONS RROKKN. Several informations ;i 1 li'.iriuur hreaeli<«s of tin* ifKiihtfirms under the Coal .Mines Act, Ithin, were laid by the ln--,|iei for of Mimys (Mr .) Hughes). George Cronin, mine manager, was charged Mint, rm January I I. fit Rewaniii, being the sliot-lirer in Spark and party’s mine, he tailed to keep all detonators issued to him, until aliont to 1 »f> used lor the chareitU'; o! I shot-hole, in :i u 1 1 a Mo *ea se or hox. se.-nrelv fastened, separate Irom any other explosive., contrary to the provisions of Regulation M‘2-1 (■') (h) of the Act. Defendant, did not appear Groom was also charged that, beiiii/ the manager of Spark and party n: :i<-■. he failed to keep explosives

taken underground, in a secure case or canister, until about to be used for the charging of a shot-hole, contrary to Regulation 224 (I) of the Act. Mr Hughes secured -permission to withdraw ,the : second charge. He Stated that, when he visited the mine, he saw a number of detonators lying loose. Defendant was fined £l. with I Oncosts. Reese Dando, miner, of Runanga. was charged that, on January 28, at Duuollie, being a person employed as a coal hewer in the Braehea ( ] mine, where props mid bars are used to support the roof at the working face, being the roof under which the work of cutting coal and filling tubs is carried on, lie failed systematically and adequately to support the roo, 01 liis working face, at such regular intervals and in such a manner as specified by notice at the mine. Defendant did not appear. 4 A similar information was laid against Daniel Syme, miner, of Runanga, who pleaded guilty. Reese Dando was also charged that on January 28, being a person employed as a coal hewer at the Braehead mine, he failed to set, and keep set, the necessary ' mini lh*i- of sjumsts. required by Section 118 of the Act, before -enmiencine and whilst holding coal in the mine. n a similar charge, Daniel Syme pleaded guilty. Air Hughes said that defendants were members of a co-operative party In view of the state of the timbering, and also in view of the fact that, on a previous inspection of the mine, it bad been necessary to stop two working places, owing to inadequate timbering, he asked that the offences be regarded as serious. I beß M ■ \y ils there danger of a fall of coal? “Distinct, danger,” replied Mr Hub. es, who added that at least <SO per cent, of accidents occurred from tin’s cause. Syme stated that lie knew lie was in the wrong, but, if the regulations were strictly carried out, the output would he affected. Mr Hughes said that the mention of output- was rather significant Syme said the reason the tinnier was not up was because he held it back for special purposes. In certain eases, when timber was put in too soon, it was in the way, and had to be pulled out. In the present ease, the Inspector just happened to come’ on the scene. Mr Hughes pointed out that the last fatality'in the district was real!vdue to delay in erecting the necessary supports. “Jibe regulations are there," said the S.M. “They are made for the purpose of securing safety in the mine. The fact that the men themselves are risking their own lives is not sufficient excuse for them not complying with the regulations. I will inflict a fine of .-£], with 10/eosts, in eacli case.” John Watson, mine manager, of Runanga. was charged that. on Jai'iiary 28, at Duuollie, being the manager of the Braehead coal mine, he failed to take such steps as are necessary for enforcing the observance in the mine of the provisions of the Act, and of the general and special regulations thereunder. It was stated that defendant was ; ll and could not attend Court. •Mr Hughes said that defendant had given him to understand he did not propose coming to Court. Tin's charge was the result of the previous informations. The manager had a. duty to perform, in seeing that the working places were timbered in a proper manner. Defendant was fined £2, with 10/costs.