The Courts.

Alexandra Herald and Central Otago Gazette, Issue 391, 5 November 1903, Page 5

The Courts.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, OPHIR. Thursday, October 29 th. (Before J .M'Ennis, Esq, S.M.) CIVIL CASES. Helen Sheppard v James White; claim, £3 Is 4d, goods supplied.— Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs 15s. Mr Hutton appeared for plaintiff. Same v A G Pryor; claim, £5 18s 7d, goods supplied.—Judgment by default for amount claimed with costs 19s. Same v Jas Cameron ; claim, £6 Is Id, goods supplied.—Judgment for amount claimed with costs £1 3s 6d. Other cases were either confessed or struck out.

TKUANCY CASES. Ryan v Helm, The Education Board's Truant Officer (Mr J Ryan) sued T Helm on four different informations for failing to send his child to school as prescribed by the Act.—Mr Kirk appeared for defendant, Mr Ryan said that the child had only passed the fourth standard, and he produced letters to show that the mother had misrepresented the case to the Board. Mr Kirk said that the mother of the child was in a weak state of health and it' was necessary that the child should be kept at borne to attend to her. The mother had written to the Board for a certificate, but no reply had been received. Mr Ryan said the Board had made inquiries and had found out that the case had been misrepresented, and as it wap a bad one, he would ask for a substantial fine. His Worship said he thought the Board should have had the courtesy to reply to defendant's letter, Defendant would be fined 2s on each information. Mr Ryan applied for costs, but His Worship declined to make an order to that effect. Ryan v R Turnbull. R Turnbull was charged similarly on four separate informations.Defendant stated the child was in bad health, and had to walk two and a-half miles to school. She was well forward in her education, and was being taught at home. Dr had promised to give a certificate of exemption, but had failed to do soi. Mr G Menzies, teacher, said he did not consider tbe child's education was as far advanced as stated by the father. Defendant was fined 2s on each information, without costs. Ryan v D Sullivan. D Sullivan, who was similarly charged, did not appear.—Fined ss, without costs. Collector of Customs v Joseph Kennedy. Joseph Kennedy was charged with having aided in withdrawing beer from a cask, without previously having defaced the duty stamp thereoni Constable Kennedy conducted the prosecution, and Mr Kirk appeared for defendant, who pleaded " Not Guilty." Constable White, stationed at Chatto Creek, sworn, said that on September 11th, he executed a search warrant and seized an 18-gallon keg of beer on defendant's premises. There was a tap in the barrel, and beer was dripping from it. The stamp on the barrel was not defaced. The barrel was taken to Ophir, and on examining it, he found that about three inches of beer had been removed from it.

Donald M'Rae, proprietor of the Shamrock Hotel, Ophir, siid he remembered selling an 18-gallon keg of beer to defendant, on the night before the raid was made. When delivered the stamp on the barrel was not defaced, neither was there a tap in it. The date on the stamp was July 28th. The barrel was taken away in a cart to defendant's residence. Cross-examined by.Mr Kirk, witness said the jolting of the cart would " mix the beer up," and render it unfit to drink, until it had stood for about 48 hours. It would not have been fit to drink at 8 o'clock next morning, when the raid was made. Constable Kennedy gave evidence corroborative of that given by Constable White. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Kirk, in opening defendant's case, contended that the prosecution had failed to prove that defendant had taken any beer out of the cask ; or that he aided in so doing, knowing that the stamp was undefaced. Joseph Kennedy, sworn, said the barrel of beer in court had been seized from his premises. He was absent at the time. The tap was driven into the barrel only a few minutes before the seizure, and he had not taken a drop out of it. The beer having been shaken up was undrinkable at that time.

In giving judgment, His "Worship said the prosecution had failed to prove that any beer had been withdrawn from the cask, and he, therefore, would dismiss the case.