Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

LEVIN SITTING-. The monthly sitting of the Magistrate's Court in Levin was held yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M. CASE UNDER THE ARMS ACT.

William George Benning, who was not present, but for whom Mr Adams appeared, was charged that in or about November, 1925, 'at Blenheim, being the holder of a license to retain possession of an unlawful weapon, and having changed his place of abode, he' did fail to notify such change within 48 hours-to the Inspector of the district in which he had resided. Defendant was also charged that, in or about November, 1925, at Blenheim, being a person in charge of a firearm, lie changed his place of abode and failed, within the proper time, to notify the authorised officer. The first charge ' was laid under Section 7 of the Registration of Arms Act, 1920, and the second under Regulation 38 of the same Act. A plea of guilty was entered, and Mr. Adams stated that he had been instructed by defendant to explain that he was a returned soldier and that this particular firearm was an old German automatic pistol which he had brought back from the war. When he was in busiuess in Blenheim he registered the gun j it was an incomplete weapon —part of the workings were missing and the defendant had no ammunition for it. He had put the registration papers in the holster for safe keeping; then he moved to Ohau, and quite overlooked the gun. When the matter of non-notification of the change of his address was brought to his attention, he quite realised his mistake and surrendered the pistol to Constable Bagrie for destruction. Constable, Bagrie stated that the gun was registered in 1921 by the defendant, who moved to Ohau in 1925. When the Arms Officer was looking over his register he, noticed that the change of address had not been notified, and the Levin police were instructed to interview the defendant. As soon as witness spoke to him, he admitted his oversight. The defem dant immediately applied for re-regis-tration, but the police were then instructed that he should be prosecuted. Defendant was so upset that he handed in the weapon for destruction. A conviction was. entered, and the defendant was ordered to' pay 10s costs on each charge. NON-NOTIFICATION OF CAR TRANSACTIONS.

Two charges were laid by the police, one against Magnus Motors, Ltd., and the other against Mrs 11. E. Lemmon, in regard to non-notification of the selling of a motor car. The information against -the Magnus Motors was that,' on or about July 2nd, 1927, at Levin, being the owners of a registered motor car, they did sell such car and did fail to notify the Deputy Register, at whoso office it was registered, of such sale. Constable Bagrie stated that a man had had a car on time payments from the Magnus Motors, and it was registered in his name; he made default in the payments and the car was taken back by the firm. This man failed to give notice of the change of ownership. Magnus Motors sold the.car to one Lemmon, and they in turn failed to notify the change of ownership. Constable Cosgrave stated that on March 3 he made at Magnus Motors regarding the car. ' A new. man was in charge, and on looking up the books he could not find any record of the change of ownership. % ~ A fine of £2 was imposed on the firm, with 10s costs. The Court then heard the charge against Mrs Lemnioh, that on January 9th, 1928, at Wellington, being the owner of a registered motor car, she did sell such car and fail to notify the Deputy Registrar, at whose., office the car was registered.. Mr Adams put in a plea of guilty, on behalf of the defendant, and said that she had left it to the agent to attend to the matter.

Constable Bagrie stated that Mrs Lemmon sold the car through, a firm in Wellington. There was not the slightest doubt that in these eases the motor agents should protect their clients. A fine of £l, with costs 10s, was imposed. BEES IN BOXES. Mr D. S. Robinson, Inspector of Apiaries, proceeded with an information against Joseph Bond, of Ihakara', that lie had kept bees in other than frame hives. The Inspector stated that on March sth, he visited the property of Joseph Bond, of Ihakara, and found five colonies of bees in.other than frame hives, contrary to Section 6 sub-section 1 of the Apiaries Act, 1927. JLe interviewed the ' defendant and asked him if he had any bees. Bond replied that he had some, but that they were common boxes, as he just wanted honey for himself. The Inspector then asked him if he knew the law in regard to keeping bees in boxes, and he replied, "Oh, yes; I havo had them in boxes before, and when the Inspector came to me in the Wairarapa he told me to burn them." Witness pointed out to him that the Apiaries Act had been in force in New Zealand for over 20 years, and that bees should only be kept in proper frame hives and that the Department of Agriculture regarded it as a very serious offence to koep bees otherwise. The defendant then strongly expressed his opinions of the present Government, of inspectors, and of apiary inspectors in particular. The Inspector pointed out to the Court that the keeping of bees in boxes had been a serious menace to the honey industry of New Zealand, in that bees wero put in boxes and left, disease in most cases attacked these bees and the bees died out. They were thus left, by owners

' who had nothing at stake, and other I bees from neighbouring apiaries rob

bed these diseased boxes, and thus the disease was spread. . One diseased box might be the means of infecting hundreds of other colonies, causing a great loss to the legitimate beekeeper. So great a menace was the keeping t>£ bees in boxes considered, that under, the new Apiaries Act of 1927 the maximum fine for this offence had been raised from £5 to £2O. The defendant had admitted having had a previous warning from an inspector he admitted a knowledge of the Apiaiies Act, and had had the opportunity of taking a warning from a similai case heard in this Court two months ago. In spite of these facts the defendant had continued to break the law. The beekeeping industry was a valuable asset to the Dominion; it was as yet a small industry, but provided a means of livelihood for many families. Around Levin the industry was carried on fairly extensively; therefore it needed all the protection that the law could give it. The Inspector asked-the Bench to regard this as a serious, offence and inflict a corresponding penalty. The defendant was fined £3, witij costs 12s. . FAILURE TO BRAND FRUIT CASES. Daniel Ransfield was charged, on the information of Mr J. W. Whelan, Inspector of Orchards, that on February 3rd, at Wellington, he exposed fruit for sale and failed to brand a registered number on each package. The Inspector stated • that on February 3rd, the defendant (who did not appear) consigned nine cases of plums to Laery and Co., Wellington, without branding on the end of each case the registered number as required in the regulations. The registered number was about the only means which tl e Department had of detecting the senders of unsatisfactorily ipacked or' diseased fruit. The Department had been giving warnings to Vpackera for about seven years. The Magistrate stated ;that, according to a letter from the defendant, who grew fruit for his own use, the fruit in question was some which he had left ■ over, and he did not know what to do with it. : : In answer to a question by His Worship, the Inspector said that all he wished to do was to bring the regulation to the notice--W. people, affected by it. •, . The defendant was fined 10s,' with costs 17s. UNDEFENDED CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the amounts named, in the following undefended cases:—-J. Downey v. Manakau Sawmilling Co., Ltd., £4O 7a lOd, costs £4 Is. 6d; James Curran v. F. Charles, £1 10s, costs 8s; Howard Andrew, Ltd., v. E. Young, £3 15s, costs £1 3s 6d; Allmands, Ltd., v. W. Greig, £1 2s, costs ss; same v. R. E. Moxham, £7 6s, costs £1 13s 6d; Edward v. J. G. Carpenter, £5 Is Bd, costs £1 13s 6d; W. M. Clark, Ltd., v. Ron. Shaw, £6 19s 6d, costs 15s; same V. A. P. Barnett, £1 19s 4d, costs 8s; King and Hunt v. B. Holdsworth, £5 18s, costs £1 10s 6d; same v. E. Pratt, £1 3s 3d, costs 8b; John and William T. Aitchison v. N. Porter, £2 0s 4d, costs £1 3s 6d; Kerslake and" Billens v. E. T. Bickerton, £l, costs 8s; same v. J. Hoffman, £5 16's Bd, costs £1 10s 6d; same v. Gus Perchama, £2 Is 6d, costs £1 16s 6d; E. H. Webber v. Cyril Varnham, £42 6s 9d, costs £1 10s; W. R. Lennie v. Tuiti McDonald, £lB .ss. 3d, costs f2 14s. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. A. Royal was ordered to pay Allmands, Ltd., £2 3s 6d forthwith, in default four days. N. K. McDonnell to pay Goldstone and Patterson, Ltd., £4 10s 6d forthdofault 28 days. R. George to pay Ann -M. Esse* 256 9s at the rate of £1 a montji, in default 28 days; solicitor £2 2s.

MANAGER'S PURCHASE DISPUT-

E. Allmand, of Levin, brought a claim for 17s 6d against F. Holtom, of Paekakariki, being the cost of an Opto shield alleged to have been supplied to a man named Randall, in December, 1925, eta daf endant 's behalf. Plaintiff stated that Randall at the time was manager of J defendant's branch garage in Levin. Plaintiff's bookkeeper had forwarded the aceuunt regularly, and it- was not until about six months ago that defendant denied responsibility. The defendant, in evidence, stated that Randall had no authority to incur debts without a written order from the head office at Paekakariki. Defendant had given notice through the papers in Levin and Wellington that he would not be responsible for debts incurred without an order. He knew nothing of the purchase and could find no record of it. He was defending the case as a test. The Magistrate said it seemed to him that the article had been supplied to defendant's Levin branch, and defendant as a business man must know that he was liable. Tha amount was a trifling one. At this point defendant offered to pay the 17s 6d if plaintiff paid the Court costs. The Magistrate , said . defendant would have to pay both, and gave judgment for the sum of 17s 6d, with costs £1 4s 6d. Defendant asked if he would be allowed to appeal, the Magistrate replying "No! You should take steps to' protect yourself in the ..future." Defendant: "Can I have a re-hear-ing?" The Magistrate "No, you .can't."

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SNEWS19280501.2.16

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Shannon News, 1 May 1928, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,857

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Shannon News, 1 May 1928, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Shannon News, 1 May 1928, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert