MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 15 November 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREYMOUTH SITTING

GREYMOUTH, Nov. 13

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday Mr Meldrum, S.M., dealt with the followiug charges DAIRYMAN FINED.

John Joseph ;Shiannah»n, farmer, of Marsden Read, was charged that, at Greymouth on September 27, he sold milk not containing 3.25 per cent, of milk fat. The information was laid under Regulation 42 (1) ('a) of the Sale of; Foods and! Drugs Act 1908. Mr T. F, Brosnan, who appeared for defendant,' pleaded guilty and submitted tfaattthe offence was not serious, there being no adulteration and no removal of milk fat. The analyst’s report showed that the percentage of milk fat in the sample was 3.05. “This sort of thing happensf to all dairymen, at this time of the year,” lie said. Shannahan’s herd had been hand-fed, and, when the spring grass made its appearance, the cows 'vent off the hand-feeding. Defendant turned them out on the paddock, which was specially dlressed,. and on which the grass had been saved for the cows. For the "•’•st two or three days, the change of feed had its effect on the milk. The gras® contained a large percentage of water at this time of the year, and the cattle had to get accustomed to the change of Once they were turned into a field of green. grf.TJ even for a couple of hours per day, they simply would not eat tile hand-feed. No matter what was done to get rid of this difficulty, it was not and similar prosecutions took place all over the country, at this time of the year. Had the test been taken at any other time, there was no doubt that the milk would have been up to requirements. The trouble always occurred when the cows were put on to the change of feed. He suggested that defendant b© convicted, without fine. The S.M.: Have you any evidence that the cattle will not take feed < tker than grass ? Mr Brosnan: No, sir. Undoubtedly, the milk was below standard, but, from the enquiries I have made, that was the reason.

The S.M. :I am not prepared to accept your statement as to any other feed. .1 think the cows would take bran-mash, in ,preference to grass. The question is whether defendant has taken any pains to make good the expected deficiency.' Mr Brosnan: It is .a worry to dairyman. There was a similar case last year.

The S.M. siaid that it had never been put forward before, that the cows would! not take any other feed, when they were on grass. The Senior-Sergeant said that deferdant had no previous convictions. The S.M. stated that a minimum fin© of £1 was provided for by statute. Defendant would be fined £l, with 10s Court costs and 10® 6di analyst’s fee. ASSAULT CHARGE.

Hurry Gibbens did net appenr, to answer charges of being drunk in Johnston Street, on Saturday, and assaulting Thomas Laior. The Senior-Sergeant said that Gibbers was bailed out at 0 a.m. yesterday, in the sum of £5. He had not been convicted for drunkenness, within the past six months. On the charge of drunkenness, Gibbens was fined ss.

Thomas Lalor, ’butcher, of South Beach, stated that, at 6.15 p.m. on Saturday, he was driving along Johnston Street, with a trotting horee and sulky, and stopped to talk to a man. Defendant came along, but witness did’ not take much notice of him, as he knew that Gibbens had a “grouch” against him. Gibbens went past, and then suddenly grabbed witness by the hack of the neck, and said, “You —— I’ve got you this time!” Witness said he took .severe punishment, ias he was still in the sulky, and could not let go of the reins. He received about 15 hard punches, and did not know yet whether his ribs were injured, as he had not been able to see a doctor. Gibbens kept on punching, but eventually someone held! the horse, and witness got on top of Gibbens. “In the sulky?” asked the SeniorSergeant. “No,” replied Lalor. “He pulled me out; We rolled on the ground, and I got on top and held liim until the police arrived.” The Senior-Sereant:. Has anything like-this happened before? Lalor stated that, a few weeks ago, Gibbens, referring to the fact that witness had received his license as a trotting tnainer, declared that he would make him “do it in.” Gibbens threatened him every time he saw hj'.i, although witness gave him no cause for it. The Senior-Sergeant handed in a lengthy list of previous convictions against Gibbens, and said that the last conviction for disorderly behaviour was recorded on January 1 this year. Tho S.M. fined Gibbens £3, with costs and 4s witness’ expenses, in default seven davs’ imprisonment. firearm charge. . James Lalor, a sawyer, of Kumara, was charged that (1) on October 17, while in his residence, Main Street, Kumara, he was drunk, while in possession of a firearm and ammunition; (2) that op October 14, lie presented an unloaded firearm at Frederick Reedy, without lawful and sufficient purpose. Mr Brosnan pleaded guilty, on behalf of defendant. A single-bar-relled breech-loading shotgun formed Exhibit A. Constable Wilton, of Kumara, stated that, when he visited Lalor’s residence on October 17, between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., bo found defendant at the back ox the house trying to sharpen a chine! on an oil stone. Lalor was

drunk. Witness told him that he was going to seize the firearm, and that Reedy had made a statement, to the effect that, on the previous Friday, Lalor, had threatened to shoot him.' The gun was hanging up over the mantelpiece and ,Lalor tried to prevent witness taking it. H© took the gun, but did not look for ammunition.

Mr Brosnan asked whether witness would have arrested a man on the street, if he were working at a motorear with a chisel.

The S.M.: You would not have arrested him if you had found him in the street like that?

“No,” replied the constable. “I don’t think I would. It was undfer the circumstances.”

Mr Brosnan: You just happened on this matter by accident? Reedy did not come to you, feeling afraid and complaining?—No. It came to my knowledge from outside. Frederick Reedy, in the course of his evidence, stated that Lalor and himself had been friends for a long time, and' were still friends. He went to Lalor’s place to spend 1 the evening on October 14, and, on leaving the house, stood on the verandah, talking to Lalor’s wifi and daughter for a considerable time. Laloj came out, and afeked him if he were not going. Witness replied “No,” and stood yarning for. about ten minutes longer. Ldor again came out, and said, ‘ You get off these premises, or I’ll shift youl” Witness walked t® the footpath, ahd Lalor said, “If you' well don’t shift, I’ll do the shifting!” He rushed insidie and came out with the gun in his left hand, the breech open, and a cartridge in his right hand. He again asked, “Are you going?” and witness said he was not ns he was on the public highway. Lalor then went into the house, and witness said to defendant s wife and daughter.

Reedy demonstrated Lalor’s actions with the gun, holding it in his left hand, with the breech open, land the barrel pointing to the ground. The S.M.: Did he put the cartridge in ?—No.

The Senior-Sergeant: The action was to frighten you away?—l thought it was bluff. As a matter of fact, it turned out to be bluff, because he did not do anything desperate?—Yes. Mr Brosnan: There is nothing much in this little trouble?— Nothing at all. The Senior-Sergeant: It is an offence to present a firearm. The S.M.: But he did not present it. The gun was broken and pointing downwards, 'and he did not even put a cartridge in. If you got the order, “Present arms,” what would you do? , The Senior-Sergeant went through the motions of bringing a gun in front of him, as if on.parade, Mr Brosnan. said that the SeniorSereant’s action meant a salute. “Ready, present fire!” quoted the S.M., laughingly, and said to "present” was to point the gun. The Senior-Sergeant: If you present box of chocolates to your young lady, you do not point it at her I The. S.M, said that Lalor was charged with presenting the gun at Reedy, but he did not present it. H© came out with the gun in his hand, and told Reedy that, if h© did not go, he would shift him. ' Reedy said that he regarded it .as bluff, and that it was bluff.

The Senior-Sergeant: Supposing a. person was to draw a revolver out of his pocket and say, “Hi ishoot you!” Because the muzzle was- not pointed he would not -be committing an offence?

The S.M.. If it is presented at Ihim, it is an offence. If the man were in fear it would be a different 'thing. There was no fear in this case. The gun was (broken, and remained broken, and was not even loaded. The Senior-Sergent: If it had been any other per.' - , who did not know Laior I presume it would have had a totally different effect. Still if y ou hold it is no offence, sir.

The S.M. Said that the charge of Representing the gun would be dismissed. ‘ '•

With reference to the charge of being in possession of a firearm, Mr Brosnan submitted that no offence had been committed. It must be proved that there was ammunition.

The S.M, pointed out that the gun was not in Lalor’s hands -at the time of the constable’s visit, but- was hanging over the mantelpiece. The fact that it 'was hanging there did not bring the ,matter within the Police Offences Act, under which the information wag laid. The gun was not in defendant’s personal possession at -the time. The intended meaning given to “possession,” including firearms in a building, was only applied to. the Arms Act. As the gun was not in defendant’s hands, it was not in his possession, for the purposes of the Police .Offences -Act. The Senior-Sergeant referred to the icil eumstances, and .said that they .should be taken into account, but the iS.M. stated that the circumstances could not b© extended over three days., ■ “I think the constable was quite, justified in taking the gun away from him, 1 ’ commented the iSenior-Sergeant. The S.M. : I am not objecting .to ■what the constable did.- The question is whether an offence ha. s been proved against defendant. The gun wins hanging securely 'and safely over the mantelpiece, and obviously there was no intention on his part of using it at thi, time. I don’t think the evidence brings the case within the section. Dismissed.