MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 1 November 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

various charges. ' GREYMOUTH, Nov. 1. At the - Magistrate’s Court yesterday, the business dealt with by . Mr W. Meldrum S.M., included the following: MOTORIST. FINED. Brendon 'Dunn was charged that, on September 16, at the while driving a motor-lorry on the Gr-ey-mout-h-Barrytown Road ; he did, hy carelessness, cause injury to an elec- : trie line, by breaking -a telegraph pole the property of the Post and Telegraph Department. Mr T. F. Brosnan pleaded guilty, on 'behalf of defendant. Constable Houston stated that, when interviewed, defendant -stated that he heard a noise, as if the tail-board of' the lorry -had fallen. He looked around to make sure, and the lorry swerved and struck' the pole. The 'Senior-Sergeant stated that the damage amounted to £3 3s 3d. f v The S.M. convicted defendant and ordered him to pay 10s costs; also £3 3s 3d to the Department. > Three weeks were allowed for payment. Robert Francis Smith was charged with driving a motor-cycle, without being th e holder of a driver’s licence, at Brunner ton, on October 8. He pleaded guilty and was fined 10s with 10s costs. On a second charge, of riding after sunset without a light, defendant was fined ss, with 10s costs. He was also ordered to pay 5s witness expenses.

Keith Fraser Iggo was charged that, at Greymouth on October 13,, he used a motor-car, without number-plates. He was also charged with driving the car after eunset, with only one headlight. He pleaded guilty. On the first charge, defendant ’was fined ss, with 10s costs, and, on the. second charge, fis, with 10s costs. Henry James Levett .was charged that, at Greymouth on .September 10, he drove a motor-car after sunset, without -a tail-light. He was also charged with driving the car without headlights. The S.M. imposed a fine of 55,. with 10s costs, oh each charge. ;

rothera Criticised,

Samuel Charles Rothera was charged with disobedience of an order made on JuJy'lß, ,1932, for the payment of £1 per week towards the support of his -wife, and 7s 6d per week ■for ieach of five children. The arrears to August 1 amounted to £8 18s. . Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for defendant, and Mr Brosnan for the Maintenance Officer.

-Mr Brosnan strongly criticised defendant, -and stated that he was deliberately flouting the Court. When a#ested' previously, Rothera 1 ' was going under an assumed name at Inangahua Junction, and was living with Another womkn. Counsel’s information wm that defendant was still living with. the woman, while his wife Ind five young ■children were at Greymouth, and had to apply for charitable aid. Rothera could secure work under the relief scheme sat Greymouth, if he would do iso. Instead of that, he vvas working on a farm, under one of the relief schemes, at 10s per week and his keep. He'' was deliberately avoiding his obligations, and, the case was one of the worst of its type. It was not a fair thing that he should desert his wife, and maintain another ■woman. He had 1 the supreme cheek to undertake the maintenance of his five children, but had only paid : £2. It .was a case for -a severe order. Mr 'Hannan said that defendant was willing to make another payment, instead of using what money he had to pay for his transport to Greymouth to attend the Court, which would have cost £4 or £5. It was news to counsel, and probably would be to Rothera that the latter could obtain work at Greymouth. The statement that he was now living with another woman was only an assumption. The S.M. : He is convicted and sentenced to one- month’s imprisonment, the warrant not to be issued provided he pays £5 off the arrears within seven days, and the balance of £3 18s within five weeks.

STOLEN OVERCOAT. Charged with the theft of an overcoat, valued at £2 12s 6d, the property of the New Warehouse, James Alien ■Maloney, 40, appeared on remand. He was charged, alternatively, with receiving the overcoat, knowing it to have been dishonestly obtained. Accused pleaded not guilty to both charges, and elected to be dealt with summarily. He was not represented by counsel. Detective-Sergeant Holmes stated that the overcoat was left hanging at tho doorway of the New Warehouse, on October 8. It disappeared, and was topped to the possession of a man named ißooney, who said that he bought it from Maloney. Accused stated that he bought the coat from a man he did not know—it was the old “man in the street” story.

Ernest Gray, salesman employed at the New Warehouse, identified the overcoat as the property of tile firm. James William Rooney stated that accused ©old him tho overcoat for 15s.

Detective Hay stated that he recovered the coat from Rooney. When interviewed, pecused stated that he bought the coat in the Public Library, from a man who gave the name of Carroll. He said he did not know the man, but described him. He produced a receipt, and said that he got it, as the coat looked new, and he thought it might have -been stolen. He admitted that the writing on th© receipt was

his, with the exception of the signature, f‘J5. Carroll.” Witness had been unable to locate anyone of the name of “E. Carnoll,” or 'anyone answering to the -description given by aceueed. The amount alleged to have been paid for the coat was 30s, and accused said that he got the money as the result of a bet on the horse Ranelagh ; at Geraldine.

Accused gave evidence, on the lines of his statement to Detective Hay. Detective-Sergeant Holmes: It is n habit of yourSj to help yourself to other people’s property?—l don’t think 80.

You denied taking articles from the Oriental Hotel, about a week ago, which were Hater found in your possession?—l was under the influence of liquor. In reply to the 'S.M., Maloney said that he had not seen 'Carro'll, before or since he bought the coat; Detective-Sergeant Holmes: You know nearly everyone in Greymouth? Only those who come around looking for a shilling or two. •Do you know anyone, who knows Carroll ?—No. The S.M.: Any previous convictions? Yes, ” said Detective-Sergeant Holmes. “Accused has a bad reputation, as a suspected thief. He has been interviewed, but always puts up a plausible Story. He was convicted for theft, on October 24, and ordered to come np for sentence if called upon. The S.M. : On the charge of theft, he is convicted and .sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. An order is made for the return of the coat to the owner. Detective-Sergeant Holmes withdrew the alternative charge. ,

THEFT of • BICYCLE,

Thomas 'Hill, a waterside worker, who fwas represented by Mr T. F. Broenan, pleaded not guilty to a charge, that at Greymouth on September Bth, he stole a bicycle valued at £5, the property of George Grant. Detective-Sergeant T. E., Holmes, who conducted police proceedings, said that the complainant left his bicycle in the bicycle shed at the wharf on September Bth; and it was missing when ;he returned for it after work. Some days later he saw a- man named Hughes •riding a bicycle with parts on it which he recognised as his own. Hughes told Grant that he had got a loan of the machine from the -accused. Th© case was a question whether the bicycle belonged to the - accused or complainant.

■After hearing evidence the Magistrate said: —

'“The evidence is a (little contradictory and I have : to ..weigh it carefully and take what I consider , to. be the prop’ r inferer ce as to what ' is the most suitable Explanation, as to the Ownership of Jthe bicycle.” The evidence of Grant regarding' the -repair was important, as that of Thompson, who carried out the repair. The evidence o! Mrs Essex was .-also important, to tile effect that when he left at the beginning of 'September, Hill .-was, busy with bicycles for some days fixing up a machine 'Which previously had always been out. of repair. • This evidence showed that some change had taken place in Hill’s bicycle before it left (Essex's plaoe, whilst it was at this time, also, that Grant’s machine wa= missing from the wharf shed. According. to Wilson’s own evidence, his bicycle was a comparatively old one two years ago, and he had given it away as it was no good. The frame of the bicycle in Court wag in good condition. There seemed little doubt but that the frame of the bicycle in Court was the one belonging to Grant and consequently that accused was the man who removed the machine from the wharf andsince converted it to •his own use, “I have no doubt, really about this,”, said the Magistrate. “The identification marks seem to me toleave no doubt whatever and I can come to no other conclusion but that accused has been guilty of theft.” Detective-Sergeant Holmes said accused had been previously convicted on February 28th, 1927, for stealing a bicycle. • He also had two minor convictions, whilst his reputation with his workmates was far from good and he was frequently suspected of theft.

■Mr Brosnan said Hill was quite a young man and the mere 'fact of him being suspected of theft meant nothing unless it was proved. The Magistrate; “But ther e is a conviction. How old is accused P” The Detective-Sergeant: "Accused is 24 years of age and a married man with one child.” The Magistrate said that unfortunately accused had 'been before the Court previously and had been convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon, so that probation was out of the question. However, he would give tlie accused a chance. He would not sentence him to a term of imprisonment, but h© would be convicted and fined £5 and also ordered to pay 36s for the cost of parts missing from tho bicycle, and £1 12s witnesses expenses, a total of £8 2s, in default one month’s imprisonment in the Greymouth prison. Defendant did not ask for time in which to make payment.