MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 5 July 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

GREYMOUTH CASES. ‘ GREYMOUTH, July 5. 'At the Magistrate’s Cqlrfl, GreyJnouth, yesterday, ,the business dealt ftvith by Mr . .W.; Meldrum, S.M.;. included:— Railway Crossing. T ' Ernest John Robb, Cobden, was charged with driving a motor vehicle aoross the railway line at the Omoto Road level crossing, while the - same was not, clear. Robb appeared, and pleaded guilty., He was fined 10/-, with costs 10/-- and ordered to pay £1 4/9 to the Railway Department for damage incurred. ' Unemployment Levy. ; On a charge of failure to pay six instalments of the Unemployment levy, due, Walter Kenning was convicted and. fined 10/- and costs on the first \ charge, and convicted on the others. For a breach of his maintenance order, iKennirig was convicted 'and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment in Greymouth prison. , , / , . / Without Lights,’ W. White, T. Jeffries, J, Crooks, P. J. Dwyer, R, J. Trouman, E. Sheppard, A. Boyesj Percy Hope, Jas. Weir, and Charles Leach, were convicted, and fined 5/* with costs, 10/* each, for cycling without lights after dark, Trouman for net having a rear reflector on his machine, was ordered to pay .costs on this charge. John Thomas Brown was charged With driving a cart, without a light attached in Tainui Street, on June 4, 1932. He was further charged with a similar offence on June 11, one week later. - ' ■’ , - . .

Constable Robinson gave' evidence, j and on the first charge, defendant was i fined 5/- with costs 10/-. Constable 1 Patterson gave evidence as to, the sec- j ond offence, and defendant was’ fined | ■ 5/- .with costs 10/-. ■ ' , j Ephraim Quy, .Thomas Phelan. Colin Campbell, Armstrong. George Dalziell, for allowing stock ,to wander in the Borough of Rurianga, : wore each convicted and fined '5/-? with costs, with witness's expenses 3/- each, j Licansing Act. j Andrew Kyle was charged that he , did ' assist, counsel,; and procure the . commission of an off epee, to wit,'/the j offence of John Orr and Edwin George Parfitt,. who were found on licensed premises of the 'Dominion Hotel On ■; June 19, 1932, at a time when such * premises were required by law .to be, closed. Defendant was / represented by Mr J. W. Hannan, and pleaded not. J guiity., # ' . ' J. i The Seiiior-Sergeflht * stated that on June 19, 1932, Orr and Paffltt were seen to enter the Dominion Hotel by Sergeant Murray and Constable’ Patterson. The time: would be about 2,<?0 o’clock, on a Sunday afternoon; Kyle' was a brother cf the licensee, and'act.. ed as barman, but it was considered f ' by the police that be also had a finan- ( cial interest in the business. -When, the police entered, they found tlie barparlour .doer locked, but in response to - the Sergeant’s knock', defendant : opened the door. The excuse Orr and i Parfitt had.for being on the premises was that they were waiting for the , bus to take then to the football match : at Wingham Park, and had entered j the hotel, in the hope of getting a I warm by the fireside. As it happen- i ed, the footbrll match , set down, had , i been postponed. It was suggested that 1 the men went to the hotel to obtain j liquor, but there was Uo sign of liquor having been served, at the time the i police entered. This might have been i due to the fact that the peliee had 1 entered “right op their heels,” and < sufficient time had not been given them in which to obtain liquor. '

The Magistrate said' that there ; was no suggestion that the men . had entered the hotel and- obtained drink. The question was whether they were lawfully entitled to be present. If a licensee had a . general right to keep, his rooms open at all times, a'ter hours, then' that would lead to considerable useage. . Oh:" and Parfitt were not the 'bona fide gueSts of the licensee, or his employee, therefore they were unlawfully on the premises. They must be convicted. Regarding the charge against Kyle, he -admitted letting tht men in, and snibbed the door, aftei they had entered,. ■ He must be held tc having aided and assisted them in being" unlawfully on the premises. . - . The Senior-Sergeant pointed out that O'.t was a third/offender, but the SIM.' said that there 'was no proof of liquor having been supplied, and it was 'probably , quite /true that the men had gone into the hotel to obtajn a warm. Under the circumstances he would treat Orr as a first offender. Each would be ordered to pay 10/costs. Careless Driving. Carl Beumerlberg, carpenter, was charged that, on June 4, 1932, he did drive a motor vehicle in Tainui Street, without being the holder of a motor driver’s license, yHe was further charged with dangel'ous driving, on the same; datCj and in ft manner which was daligefous to Douglas Ellis. Mr J, W. Hahiiafi appeared for defendant, and pleaded guilty, to the charge of not having a license, and not guilty to thfe' second charge. The Senior-Sergeant stated that defendant was driving a Ford threeseater car, along Tainui. Street, about 5.30 p.m. on the day in question, and when opposite Blanchfield’s bakery in Tainui' Street, he overtook two cyclists, and did not notice them until too close to avoid colliding with Ellis. In a statement to the police, defendand had said that he bad no time to

! swerve and did what he could, by | applying his brakes. Each ’of the i cyclists had a rear reflector, but were [ without head-lights. Douglas Goram Ellis, baker, resid- | mg' 'in Marlborough Street. P- n vp evidence of having.been knopked over by ' defendant’s .car, .and although- he ...considered himself; uninjured at the-.time, he'; had not since-been able tp ..follow his employment, and woii'd. hhye' to •have ..his foot x-rayed: .;W ; Bell, and witness had ,been , tfaveljing, on"".thei f ’' ■correct side of the ' road; 5 and' : .defdndr ant’s; explanation fbr • having hit them, was that- hb .hud not noticed them until too late- to avoid. the collision. Frank Ilewis' Bell .corroborated; the evidence of Ellis. ■ They -were; .Well; on their, correct side of . the. road. Defendant said -that he did > not- notice either of .’them until 'lie .-was right oii top of. Ellis. They had reflectors,'but ho headlamps; at the time. ' ... v. ;■ . ' Albert Edwin Sloss, traffic, inspector, Stated that he had interviewed defendant- and Was Shown the skid marks of the car, which measured 28 feet in length, He could not see any reason for the accident,' To Mr Hannans Witness had experience of the difficulty in picking up objects, when proceeding along Tainui Street, owing to the black asphalt road. To the Senior-Sergeant: Defendant should have noticed Ellis ancf Bell. Constable E. J.' C. Hay read a statement made by defendant,' who explained that he wa s too close to the cyclists to avoid them. He had since renewed his license, and had attempted to renew it before .the accident. Mr Hannan said that defendant had beeh working a,t' Kokiri, and had' called at the traffic' inspector's office, but could not get his license renewed, as the inspector bad been absent Carl Beumerlberg, defendant, said that he Was driving the car at a pace of between 17 and. 20 miles per hour, when the accident occurred. He was keeping a good look-out, but his lights did not pick up the cyclist.To the ScftiioiT “-Sergeant: He was within about nine or ten feet of the

cyclists, before he noticed them. Just “between light” was the worst time for driving a car. He was not talking to his friend in the c?r just prior to the 1 collision., On the charge of driving without a license, defendant was fined 5/- with costs. On the other charge, the S.M stated that he agreed with Mr Hannan that it was difficult to drive along Tainui Street ,a't night, owing to the black asphalt road. Not all mudguards on bicycles were painted white, which helped motorists tn pick up a cyclist, who was difficult to see from behind. The question was whether defendant bad been driving carelessly, and failed to nee the cyclists. The Magistrate thought that the suggestion of the Senior-,Sergeant, that defendant had been talking with his friend might be true. Had be been on the alert and kept his eyes to file mad. no accident would have occurred. He considered that Beumei'lhei'g had boon either cureless or absent-minded. He would be convicted and fined £1 ■ with costs 10/-, and witness’s expenses 18/-.