MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 24 March 1933, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TO-DAY’S SITTING

CASES HEARD AT HOKITIKA

Cases were dealt with by Mr W. Melclrum, S.M., in the-Magistrate’s Court at Hokitika this morning as follow:

On Licensed Premises

Charged with being found on licensed premises, a defendant pleaded not guilty.' . \ ■ Constable McLennan gave evidence of finding defendant on. the premises of the Commercial Hotel, his excuse being that he was looking for a bicycle.-

Defendant, in the box said that he had lost his bicycle and was told that there was one in a shed at the back or the hotel, and p-hile there he was accosted by the police. He had not been inside the hotel.

The Magistrate accepted defendant’s excuse, and dismissed the case. Hotel Licensee Charged.

William Hall (Mr Sellers), licensee or the Dunedin Hotel, was charged with selling liquor after hours, and with opening his premises for the purpose of selling, On the application of counsel, an adjournment was granted owing to defendant’s indisposition, Charges of (Fraud.

Two charges of obtaining credit by fraud were preferred against a young commercial traveller.

Accused said he would plead guilty to the first charge, that of obtaining board by fraud from G. W. Keller, to the value of £l2 12s. The police said that accused after three weeks at the hotel, was presented with an account for board. He said he was expecting money from Christchurch, and a week later he left without. notice. Inquiries elicited that he was staying in Grevmouth.

Accused said that when he went to Keller’s he had sufficient to pay for his board, hut he was held up owing to bad weather, and consequently found that he had insufficient to meet his dues., He communicated with. his firm, ana with his family, and the reply was sent to the wrong hotel. He had no inten. tion of defrauding the licensee, ana made no effort to conceal his whereabouts. , ' ,

but I told him I’d knock his bally head off for breaking the gate. To Mr Murdoch: Shannon, when he called was abusive and called me an old b , and later On called me further names. Within half an hour of his visit you had carried' out certain work for Shannon?—Yets, and delivered them to his shop. Could la drunken.person have performed .that work?— Certainly not, Sir.

Mr Murdoch said plaintiff was one of the best workers in his particular line in the district. Mr Murdoch: You reduced your prices to. Shannon in the hope of further work?—l reduced them to help

him along. Were you ever drunk during these 39. hours’ work?—No sir, I swear it. John Jiames Bradley said lie whs with Shannon’ when lie visited "Wright. The gate was unhinged and broken, and no violence was, vented on it. Mr Elcook: Did you see Wright ? No, but I could bear him. Shannon returned and said Wright was drunk. I did not hear Shannon call 1 plaintiff “an old b I swear it.” • v , Mr Murdoch:. You would say plaintiff was committing, perjury ?—^Yes. Did you hear any swearing?—No. •; iSamuel Joseph an employee of llenton and Co.,' gave evidence to the effect that the gate was in a bad state* of repair. ; Defendant detailed the .work done on the truck, outlined the work that both he and plaintiff had to do. Defendant said that it was' arranged that Wright should ;d<> the work , for £3 10s, it ml that he had ”9 ofcho? work beyond, that in .the arrangement. Defendant disputed the value of sov e oral pf the items in .plaintiff’s state* mpnt of clajm. Defendant further denied damaging the gate, which tip? peared to, be broken, and which he had to lift. ’He went to the door; and atfer knocking receiving an invitation to enter. On doing go, he found plaintiff “lying paralytic drunk on the floor,” and another man sitting nearby also drunk. Plaintiff, during the time he was working for defendant, was often under the influence of liquor, and was not in a fit condition to work. Wright had .been so abusive, at times that he (defendant) liad gone to the police. Mr Murdoch: Were the- pins delivered within half an hour of your visit, as plaintiff -claims P-'-No. ' They- were not delivered until the following afters noon. ’•" '' ..

Mr Murdoch closely cross-examined defendant as to particulars of the work done as affecting both .parties. . If plaintiff was unfit for work,' why did you let him continue?—l had to get the work done.- • Conrad Berendt, a blacksmith, said he had .'had experience in fixing springs. Befen'idant had asked him for a quote for the work, He had quoted £4 10s. He considered £3 10s a reasonable offer. He also thought that 18 hours would have .been sufficient to do the work, .. - Mr Murdoch: You know that Wright is an export in his line?—He declares The second charge was withdrawn. |he is.

Accused said that. his family were willing to help. He had always been able, to do fair business, and his travelling throughout the district had been responsible for heavy expenses. Accused had been given on offer to work enabling him to pay. his hotel account if lps name were suppressed.

He was .convicted and ordered to come up for Sentence if called on within twelve months, payment to be made within one mouth.

The Bench ordered the suppressing of accused’s name.

By-Law Breaches. For cycling without a light L. Qrpwood was fined 5s and costs.

J. Chapman was charged with driving a motor vehicle with faulty lights, and was fined 5s and costs.

Maintenance Case 9.

Norman Karnbnch applied for a variation of his malntnance order. The case was adjourned. Karnbach was later the defendant in a charge of disobedience of his maintenance order, this case, too, being adjourned. Hector Turnbull was also charged with disobedience of his maintenance order.

Counsel said that variation had been made time after time, and the whole thing had been reduced to a farce. In the meantime the girl had to maintain the child, Dfendant had paid nothing for two years, and, in all, had been before the court about seventeen times.

As both parties are residents of Christchurch, the Magistrate adjourned the hearing to Christchurch.

Claim for Wages and Damages

Walter ITarokl Wright (Mr Murdoch) claimed the sum of £9 11s 10d from James Shannon (Mr Elcock),

Plaintiff said his occupation was Hnit of blacksmith. Ins specialty being spring making. He had done certain work on a motor lorry for defendant, 39 hours, and had charged 2s 6d an hour, which was cheaper than the ordinary rate. Defendant gave full particulars of the work done and the materials used. Defendant had later COmolainetl of the work in connection with tile springs, but the man for whom the work was being done had said the work was satisfactory. The claim included £3 for damage done to plaintiff’s gate, which, be alleged, defendant had kicked down. Counsel: I think £2 2s 9d has been paid into court. Air Elcock: You took nearly four to do the 39 hours’ work.— Yes. J' wag, done only at odd times. Was there any word of contract. No, not a word. Clonmel: .You had started to celebrate Ckririwurt during December had you not?— What do you mean? Were you ..not in a muddled condition from, liqu or ?—No sir There was a conviction a g ainst . vou in. December for drunkenness wasn’t there?-That is so. - . Did you see Shannon kick the gate. —No, but J heard the blows. Was .it in good repair ? Yes. I think it was out of repair a fortnight ♦before'?- —No, sdir. Why was the- prop behind tbte gat o ? To keep fellows -out. Were you not drunk when Sihamun called, hud kicking up a rowfV-No,

Mr Elcock: Is he usually in a fib state to work ?—l’m not, prepared to say.

Professional jealousy, eh? Sergeant C. J. King said, that, about the middle of December, Wright was non compos mentis, and h§ liad been arrested for drunkenness.. To Mr Murdoch; H e / wa s< not pre. pared bo say that Wright would not be fit to do hip work during the 39 hours, John Bradley, a farmer, of ArahUra* said he was the owner of the trjjfck. The' price for altering and painting wa® £2O, but the' back springs' had to be fixed again as they were unable to stand up to the load -required. Wright, one day when he saw witness, offered, to do the baelp springs foy' hjn}: J . The Magistrate said that the gate had been in bad repair. For th e rest of !the claim, he would givp judgment for plaintiff for £5 7s, 4d, less amount already paid, together with coet-s and witnesses’ expenses. Claim for Rent. (Stanley Bassett (Mr J. W. Hannan) iclaimed the sum of £6O 8s 3d rrom West Coast Motors Ltd. (Mr Murdoch), being an amount allegedly due for a twenty per cent, reduction in rent of land 'Chattels, and insurance. Mr Murdoch said there was some indecision over the case, owing to the interpretation of the National Expenditure Art and this particular-case, he believed, was the first of its kind to be brought before the Court. • /*' Mr Murdoch said that the-'rent of land and the insurance was not disputed, but h e desired the Court to gi ve its ruling. He was aware that he could not claim a reduction on the rent of: the chattels. V-* Mr Hannan withdrew the claim for vent, and agreed to bring an application to the Court next day for legal argument.

Judgment f or plaintiff was given for £2l 8s 3d and costs.-