MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 March 1921, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

YESTERDAY’S CASES. A sitting of the Magistrate’s Court, New Plymouth, was held yesterday, Mr. T. A. B. Bailey presiding. A good number of cases against persons for breaches of the by-laws figured on the list. CYCLISTS FINED. Two boys, John Brodie and James Smith, were charged, on the information of Inspector Day, with riding on the footpaths in Sackville Street and Carrington Road, respectively. The Inspector said he did not wish to bring boys to court, but the offence -was -becoming altogether too frequent, and some effort had to be made to cheek it. Defendants, who did not appear, were each fined ss, with costs 7s. Cecil Rutter was convicted and fined ss, with costs 7s, on a charge of riding a cycle without a light. C. Anderson who was summoned on a similar charge, said he was a new-comer from England, and was not aware of the by-laws. He said that in England lights on bicycles were not necessary in the towns. He was fined ss, and ordered to pay the costs 7s. MOTORIST FINED '£lo. A charge of exceeding the speed limit on Tukapa Road, was preferred against William Booker. There vjas no appearance of defendant. Inspector Day said that he saw Booker come round a. bend of the road on a motor-cycle at about 40 miles an hour. There were several vehicles on the road and also quite a number of children coming from school, and the speed at which defendant was going was most dangerous. Evidence was given by A. Betts, driver of the corporation bus, that the bus was stopped and a number of passengers were alighting, when Booker passed, at a speed of from thirty five to forty miles an hour. A fine of £lO, with costs was imposed. MAINTENANCE ORDER. Walter McKay was summoned to answer a charge of failing to comply with an order for the maintenance of his children, and admitted that he owed certain moneys. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment, the order to be suspended while he pays £1 per week, and a further £2 per week off the arrears until they have been paid off. Margaret E. Crowley (of Kaponga), proceeded against J. D. Crowley, for disobedience of maintenance order. For complainant, Mr. C. H. Croker said that Crowley, who could not be found, was £354 in arrears. His wife previously had a charging order on proceeds from the sale of the farm, but she had afterwards withdrawn this at the request of Crowley. He had sold the farm and was reported to have received a good deal of cash, but had not made the maintenance ’payments as promised. His Worship said he would issue a warrant for the arrest of defendant. BUILDING BY-LAWS. A number of breaches of the building by-laws were preferred against J. H. Sheppherd, namely, failure to obtain a building permit, allowing an unlicensed person to do plumbing, and laying a drain without a license. The cases were before a previous sitting of the court when they were dismissed, without prejudice, owing to the informant’s case not being quite clear on the question of whether the work in question had been done within the previous six months or earlier. When the case was called on, Mr. Billing said defendant had decided to plead guilty, the facts brought forward by the Inspector convincing him he was mistaken. On the information relating to plumbing and draining, His Worship fined defendant £2, on each of the two charges, and ordered payment of costs £3 Ils. He remarked that the interference of unlicensed people could not be allowed. On the information regarding failure »to obtain a permit for the commencement of building, defendant was fined 10s and costs. ALLEGED INDECENT ASSAULT. Stewart J. D. Russell appeared on remand on a charge of having indecently assaulted a little girl, aged eight years, at the East End bathing shed on February 19. Accused, who was represented by Mr. A. A. Bennett, pleaded not guilty. Detective-Sergt. J. Cooney prosecuted, and before opening the case asked His Worship to use the discretionary powers he possessed and order the general public to leave the Court. This was agreed to. Detective Cooney outlined the details of the charge, and the methods taken with regard to the identification’ of accused. When Russell had been interviewed on the matter he admitted having quite accidentally entered the door of the ladies’ apartment, but denied having committed any offence. Seven witnesses were called, including the girl, her mother, and four persons who were on the beach. Mr. Bennett submitted that the evidence adduced for the prosecution, even if it were all exactly correct, did not amount to proof of indecent assault, quoting authorities in support of this contention. There was nothing in the evidence which pointed to criminal assault. His Worship said he was satisfied that it was a case to go to a jury. Accused would be committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at New Plymouth. Bail was allowed on the same terms as previously, namely one surety of £lOO, and accused in his' own recognisance of £lOO. ALLEGED CRUELTY TO DUCKS. On the information of C. J. Wickham, Inspector for the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Frank Farrell was charged with ill-treating a number of ducks, the property of David Charteris. A similar charge was preferred against his wife, Maud Farrell. Evidence was given by the owner of the ducks that he found several showing signs of having been ill-treated and one had* both thighs broken. Others had the heads badly knocked about. Two had to be killed. The inspector stated that he interviewed Mrs. Farrell, whose house adjoined Charteris’ property, and she admitted having beaten the ducks. The defence, as outlined by Mr. Quillen. was that the ducks had proved an annoyance to the defendants, being continually in and out of the garden, and,, Mrs! Farrell rang up her husband about the matter. He advised,her to kill them, as she had a rigflit to do so. When Parrell arrived home between twelve

and one o’clock that afternon he took a stick and hit two of the ducks, killing them outright. Later in the day Mrs. Farrell also took a stick, and chased three of the ducks. G. D. Magnusson said the ducks in question had been in his garden, and he went to tell Charteris that two were dead, and that he had better take charge of the others. Witness intended to kill the other three, as they were pulling his garden to pieces. Evidence was also given by the two defendants. His Worship remarked that there was an extraordinary conflict of evidence in the case. 1 ■ In addressing the Court, Mr. Quilliam pointed out that in cases of this kind the prosecution must prove deliberate intention of being cruel on the part of the defendant. His Worship dismissed the informations. MISCELLANEOUS. On the information of Wi Kupe Nayer, Joe Tainakaha (for whom Mr. Bennett appeared) was bound over to keep the peace in his own -surety of £25. The case, it was stated, arose out of some trouble at a tangi when Tainakaha assaulted Nayer. He had since, however, expressed regret and consented to enter into a bond. Fines of 10s, and costs 7s, were imposed against Karl Akir and O. F. Barriball, who were charged on the information of the borough inspector with failing to negotiate street corners on the proper side. The informant remarked that the practice of motorists turning into streets on the wrong side was Highly dangerous and His Wori&ip said in future the offence would be treated more severely. For allowing a chimney in his house in Bulteel street to catch on fire James Bruce was convicted and discharged. Evidence given by Superintendent Bellringer was to the effect that defendant was boiling tar on the kitchen range, and the chimney "and mantelpiece caught on fire, resulting in damage to the extent of about £4O.