MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 September 1922, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING CIVIL CASES.

A sitting of the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday, Mr. A. M. Mowlem, 'S.M., being on the bench.

Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following undefended cases: Kidd Co., Ltd., v. R. Bedford, £3 16s (costs £1 15s 6d); New Plymouth Shirt Factory v. Mrs. Dalton, £l5 7s 3d (costs £2 I’s); same v. Mrs. Laurence, £l5 3s 5d (costs £2 7s). In the case of Mary Elizabeth Rielly v. Leslie Rielly, a claim for £3l 6s, debtor was ordered to pay the amount owing forthwith, in default 28 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to foe suspended if defendant pays £lO in reduction of the debt within seven days, another £lO by October 28, and the balance remaining by November 28. H. V. Penwarden, on the suit of Ralph Collins, was ordered to pay £l2 5s 9d forthwith, in default 12 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended so long as debtor pays off the debt at the rate of 30s weekly. UNSTAMPED SCALES. “It’s certainly one of the worst scales we’ve come across,” said the inspector of weights and measures (Mr. W. J. Mountjoy), in producing a set of scales, formerly in the possession of Mace Bros., butchers. Omata, and which was unstamped. The inspector said evidently the mechanism of the scale was erratic, as sometimes it weighed correctly, sometimes overweight, and sometimes underweight. An unstamped spring balance, which was found to weigh correctly, had also been seized. The Magistrate said the latter breach was a technical one, and fined defendants 10s (costs 7s), but took a more serious view of having in their possession the unstamped family scales, and inflicted a fine of £2 (costs 7s). WANDERING STOCK. Richard Giddy, Percy Putt and Barton Herbert were fined 10s (costs 7s) for allowing stock to wander on the county roads. On a second charge, Percy Putt was fined £1 (costs 7'3). Inspector H. Y.' McGahey prosecuted. “OVERSTEPPING THE MARK.” “I certainly had a little too much, but I don’t think I was drunk,” said George A. Clarke, who was charged with being found drunk at Spotswood the previous evening whilst in charge of a motor lorry. Senior-Sergt. McCrorie said the police had found the man in a ditch, with the lorry alongside him. Answering the Magistrate, defendant said he was not in the ditch, but was sitting on the foank when the police had arrived. He had driven from Oakura, where he had a few drinks, but not being well, these had an effect on him, and he had probably •overstepped the mark. The Magistrate remarked that defendant had had a big bit of luck in getting from Oakura to Spotswood without accident. He would be fined £5 for “overstepping the mark,” as he called it. Fourteen days were allowed in Which to pay. BORROWED WAGES CLAIM. Judgment was delivered in the case of Ivy Feakins v. Phoenix Motors, Ltd., the total amount claimed being £l4 15s. It will be remembered that when the case was heard it was stated that Miss Feakins, who was employed in the office, had advanced the amount to F. H. F. Washbourne to pay the wages. The plaintiff contended that Washbourne, who gave an i.o.u. for the amount, was acting for the Phoenix Motors. Ltd., who were liable, whilst counsel for the defence argued that the Phoenix Motors had not at that time taken over the business, and were not, therefore, liable. Tn the course of a lengthy written judgment, in which he fully reviewed the facts of the case, the Magistrate found in favor of the plaintiff for £l4 15s (costs £6 16s).

Mr. Croker asked leave to appeal, although the amount involved was under £2O, as a matter of principle and a question of law were involved. The application was opposed by Mr. Billing, as the amount involved was under £2O, and the case was an ordinary one. Only a matter of facts, and not a question of principle, was involved. He contended, further, that the extra expense that would be involved was unnecessary.

Mr. Croker said if it was a question of expense he would see his directors, who. he thought, would be willing to see that the plaintiff was put to no unnecessary expense herself. The Magistrate intimated that he would give a decision later in the day. On application being renewed the Magistrate said he was still of opinion that no new principle was involved. He had no desire to prevent litigants from obtaining the opinion of the Supreme Court, but he failed to see the necessity in this case. Leave to appeal was therefore refused. A CROP OF THEFTS. Several charges of theft were preferred against a young man named James Worthley Glenn, the first 'being the alleged theft of a Kodak camera, valued at £4 10s. Glenn pleaded guilty to the charge. Detective-'Sergt. Cooney said two young women came from Wanganui to New Plymouth on August 7. staying at a private hotel. That evening they left a Kodak camera in their bedroom, but on looking for it the following day could not find it. The accused had stayed at the same private hotel, and on being arrested on other charges the camera was found on him. Accused said he had bought the camera from a local chemist, but later, on being told that the two young ladies had identified the camera as their property, he confessed his guilt. The Magistrate said that, in view of the fact that there were other, cases against accused, he would merely be convicted till the other charges had been heard.

Breaking and entering the residence of J. F. Passau, Bell Block, and stealing therefrom 13s in money, and a gold brooch valued at £3 15s, were the next charges to be heard. The offences were alleged to have taken place about September 10, 1922.

Detective-Sergt. Cooney said Mr. Passau was a farmer residing at Corbett Road. He had left 13s in his trousers pockets in his bedroom, and had missed this amount. Two shillings had also been taken from the children’s money box, whilst Mrs. Crombie, who lived there, had missed a gold brooch from a drawer. When arrested on September 12, accused had the brooch, since identified as that belonging to Mrs. Crombie, in his tie.

Corroborative evidence was. given, and. in answer to the usual question, aecused pleaded guilty, and wa« ooia-

mi tied to the Supreme Court for sentence.

Allegations of having appropriated sixpence, half a plug of tobacco, and £lO 10s in money from the residence of Frank Copestake, Lepperton, on or about August 27, were then heard. According to the detective-sergeant’s story, accused had been engaged by Mr. Oopestake at 30s a week, with board and washing. On the date in question, a Sunday, Mr. and Mrs. Copestake had gone out for the afternoon, and that night accused had gone away without giving any sort of notification. Later, ten single £1 notes, which Mr. Copestake had left hanging up in his trousers pockets, and 10/9 which was in a cash box, were found to be missing. The accused came back on September 10, when two of the employees were home, but Mr. and Mrs. Copestake were away. Accused told them at the house that he had seen Mr. and Mrs. Copestake on the way to town, and they had toia him to call in and have some dinner. Accused read the paper, polished his boots and dined. On the return of the Copestakes it was found that all the drawers in one of the bedrooms had been pulled out and ransacked. Sixpence that had been left on the table, and half a plug of tobacco, were missing. The detective’s story was substantiated by witnesses’ evidence. On these charges also the accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. “That still leaves open the question of punishment for the theft of the camera, foy which you have elected to be dealt with summarily by this Court,” said the Magistrate. “How old are you ?” “Twenty-three,” was the answer.

“You seem to have been in trouble ever since 1916,” said his Worship. “Although you are only twenty-three the fact that you have been more or less in and out of gaol, or similar institutions, for the last few years shows that you have evidently made up your mind to become a criminal. You have only a little time ago completed two years’ reformative treatment, but the only result seems to foe to make you more expert in crime.” On the charge of the theft of the camera accused was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment with hard labor.