MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 November 1922, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(NEW PLYMOUTH SETTINU, CIVH. CASES. The weekly sitting of the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr. A. M. Mawleto, S.M., yesterday. Judgment was given by plaintiff by default in the following undefended cases:—H. B. Leatham V. R. H. Phillips, £54 (costs £4 16s 6d); E. GlUOkmah. v. M. Farquhar, £1 16s fid (costfl 13s); C. Carter v. F. G. Smith, £9 13b 8d (costs £2 18s); H. Bro wn and Co., Ltd. v. Geo. Bennett, £7 10s 6d (costs £1 13s 6d). Bruce Douglas Stone was ordered to pay to Edward H. Saunders the sum of £6 18s 5d forthwith, in default seven days’ imprisonment, the warrant to lie suspended for seven days. L. Reilly was similarly dealt with in respect to his debt of £6 2s fid owing to the Farmers’ Union Trading Co. In the case of Stainton and 'Co., Ltd., v. Geo. A. Pugh, the defendant was ordered to pay £l5 Is 3d forthwith, in default 14 days’ imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended. so long as he paid £7 10s in reduction of his debt before November 30 and paid the balance by December 16, 1922. •BLOWING HOT AND COLD. “The plaintiff appears to be blowing hot and cold - at the same time,” said the Magistrate, in dismissing an application brought by Isobel Daisy Atkinson against Marmaduke Atkinson for failure to pay moneys under a maintenance order. A letter produced showed that plaintiff had written to defendant, saying she was” quite able to keep herself, yet, at the same time, she was taking proceedings for failure to pay. SCAFFOLDING REGUL ATTON.S • BROKEN. The setting up of a scaffolding exceeding 16 feet in height from the ground without first notifying the inspector of scaffolding (Mr. W. J. Mountjoy) of his intention to do so, formed the basis of a charge against O.' Le Page. A plea of guilty was entered. The insoector explained that on October 16, defendant was engaged in painting the “H. 8. building in Devon Street, scaffolding being used. One platform was 18ft high, and the other 22ft high, these being erected over the verandah, which varied in height from 11 to 14 feet. There were three skylights in the \erandah. The 14ft platform consisted of one plank on brackets, which were 10ft. fiin. apart, whereas the regulations said that these should not be placed at a greater distance apart than nine feet. On the 22ft platform the brackets were placed 14ft apart, and no guard was used. Tn this case also the platform consisted of only one plank, which caused a good deal of side play on the brackets. The plank was only nine to ten inches wide, though the regulations required a width of eighteen, inches. The men employed on the work were told to cease work, which they did, and the defect was later rectified. No notice of intention to erect scaffolding had been given by defendant, who said he did not know the regulations.

Mr. Quilliam, for defendant, contended that no actual risk was caused by the use of the brackets, which were properly attached to the wall, though a breach of the law could not de denied. Le Page had previously used ladders in the painting of high buildings, and hence he was not acquainted with the scaffolding regulations. Defendant did not wish it thought that he had not paid due regard to the safety of his workmen. The Magistrate said it was the defendant’s business to be acquainted with the regulations as much as to know how to carry out the work. Defendant was fined £3 (costa 7s).

UNSTAMPED SCALES. Two charges of being in possession of unstamped scales (one a 251 b pocket balance and the other a serial scale) were laid against C. Henshaw, butcher. The inspector, in outlining the ease, said defendant parried on a business in Devon Street known as the Farmers’ Butchery. The unstamped scales were used in the small-goods portion of the business for weighing ingredients, which went into the manufacture of sausages, etc. The other scale was evidently used for weighing fat. Neither of the scales were used in the shop. Defendant excused himself by saying that he did not consider the scales were worth stamping. An investigation had shown that both scales Were correct up to their full capacity, but the breach consisted in being in possession of unstamped weights.

Mr. Quilliam. for defendant, contended that the breach was a purely technical one, as customers in no way suffered, all the shop scales being in order. The unstamped scales were used only on rare occasions in connection with manufacturing small goods. “Purely a technical breach,” said the Magistrate, in entering a conviction, with an order to pay costs (7s) in each case. ANY PORT IN A STORM. ■An excuse that they were in a hotel ,-olely for the purpose of sheltering from the rain was offered, by two men, Allans McCartney and Robert John Gilchrist, in pleading not guilty to a charge of being on the licensed premises of the Imperial Hotel on Sunday, November 5. at U-30 a.m., when these licensed premises were directed to be closed. “I was walking along the street about 11.30 on the Sunday morning;’ stated Senior-Sergeant McCrorie, in evidence, “when I saw a porter peeping round the window of the bar, so I went into the hotel by the Currie Street entrance. While going along the passage I heard the 'bar-door slam, and three men came from the direction of the bar. I stopped and questioned them. Gilchrist said he had come into the hotel to see McCartney, while McCartney said lie had come in to see Gilchrist. Neither gave any further excuse except that they were old friends, who had not met for some time, and wanted to see one another. Both showed the effects of liquor.” The t-enior-sergeant said that the bar door was closed but not locked. Inside were the licensee's wife and the porter, the former saying that McCartney had booked a room, but she knew nothing about Gilchrist. That night McCartney came to witness’ house and said lie had an excuse, which was to the effect that he had met Gilchrist on the street. As the rain came on they went into the hotel for shelter. As a jnatter of fact, said witness, it was not raining at the lime. McCartney explained that his main reason for calling at the sergeant's resL

deuce was ,to notify his change of address to Eltham. The other defendant, Gilchrist, (Wired also to ask the senior-sergeant if he saw them come out of the bar. The Senior-sergeant: No, but I’m sure that’s where you came from. The explanation vouchsafed by McCartney was that he was dissatisfied with the hotel where he was staying, and so decided to go to the Imperial Hotel,' where he booked room 29. On coming out he met Gilchrist, an old friend whom he had not met for several years. As the weather was boisterous they went inside the hotel and chatted for about twenty minutes -on the settee. They had no liquor, nor did they attempt to obtain any. They met two policemen on coming away, and. as requested, gave their addresses. Later, witness collected his bag from the other hotel and went to the Imperial Hotel, where he stayed that night. A similar story was told by Gilchrist, who offered the additional information that “on coming out we ran into a sergeant and a constable, and, of course, that was the end of it.” The Magistrate: “It usually is.” Gilchrist: “McCartney invited me in out of the rain.” The Magistrate: “Lots of men would go into the hotel out of the rain if that were a proper excuse.” “I had doubts at first as to your guilt,” said the. Magistrate to McCartney, “but I have none now. There is no doubt about Gilchrist. You will each be fined £1 (with costs 75.) It is plain you were both illegally on licensed premises/’ McCartney: “I fail to see it, sir.” The Magistrate: “But I do—and that’s just the difference between us.” For being on the licensed premises o; the Imperial Hotel at 8.35 p.m. on October, when such premises were directed to be closed, 'Walter Drury, who did not appear, was fined. £1 (costs 7s).