COURT NEWS

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 2, Issue 122, 12 February 1940, Page 8

COURT NEWS

MAGISTRATE'S SITTING A SHORT LIST The monthly sitting of the Opol- - Magistrate's Court was held al the Opotiki Courthouse before Mr K. L. Walton, S.M. A claim by the Commissiloner of Taxes against John August was adjourned. Mr Bunkall who appeared for defendant, said there was obviously a mistake and the summons had been served on the wrong man. Defendant was a married man with seven children and was a labourer. He would have to eairn £550 before he would be liable lor taxation. CLAIM FOR WAGES. The Inspector of Awards (Mr Goodacre) proceeded against H. IT. Warrington (Mr Hei 1 ). The inspector asked for a penalty for a breach ol" the award and also claimed t|wo amounts in respect of .wages not paid. Mr Goodacre stated that an inspection was made of defendant's premises. It was found that two waitresses were employed. They should have been employed at 3os per week but were paid £1 ss. Probationers could be employed for 6 months provided there were three or more fully paid waitresses. The department did not receive notification that it was intended to take on probationers. Defendant had stated he did not know there was an award The employer had siViee paid £3. This now made one claim £9 10s and the other claim £10.

Mr Hei told the Court that the employer did not know anything about an award and therefore did not know he had to notity the Department about probationers. The defendant worked as a cook and his wife also worked in the boardinghouse. This made at least four employees in the establishment. That meant defendant was entitled io have two probationers —not one. Two of the girls had not enrolled the union for some months. Mr Hei read Rule 28 of the award, which he contended meant that his client was not bound under the award. Opotiki was not mentioned in the list -of country places, the nearest places being Tauranga and Rotorua. In his opinion the award did not apply to Opotiki. The Magistrate said the award made it clear that Opotiki' was in the Northern District. It was not necessary to mention every place. On the lirst claim Mr Walton gave judgment for the sum of £2 and costs 10s (id. On the first wage claim judgment was given for £9 10s

fcmd costs 15s and on the. other wages claim judgment was for £10 and costs £1 3s. ON LICENSED PREMISES James Wilson was charged with being on licensed premises after hours. Sergeant Isbister said that on the 29th January lie saw defendant come out of an hotel at night. Defendant admitted he had gone in for a drikik but had got none. A fine of £1 with costs 10s Avas imposed . THEFT OF LEGGINGS Jules Parkinson was charged with the theft of leggings, the property of Mr Stansbury. Sergeant Isbister said that accused admitted taking the lleggings. He claimed that another employee had used his own property and he took the leggings to get one back, when he left Mr Stansbury's employ. Unfortunately the leggings belonged to his employer. Besides that Parkinson had taken other thrngs. Defendant was convicted and fined £2. NO SAFETY GLASS A case of considerable interest to all motorists, was the hearing of a charge against W. L. Lindley, brought by the Opotiki Borough Council. Inspector Morell told the Court he had noticed that an old windscreen had been replaced in defendant's car, by an old screen of plain gl'ass from another car. Mr Bunkall entered a plea of guilty, on behalf of defendant. Mr Bunkal'l said that defendant ivas going away to camp and had replaced the screen in the car, which a very old one.* He had given the car away but as soon as he found out that he should not have put the glass in, he had warned his friend. The Magistrate imposed a tine of 10s with costs.

LICENSING OFFENCE

Wiki Nathan (Mr Hei) was charged with supplying liquor for consumption off licensed premises. A plea of guilty was entered. Sergeant Isbister said that on 6th January, in company with Constable Cooper, he was in Kelly Street. Ihev were passing a house from which noise was coming from inside. Several people came out on the verandah and there was a good deal ol disturbance. They saw a Maori woman trying to take a bottle ot whisky (previously produced in Court) from the accused. The police took possession of the "whisky. The accused in the present case was the receiver. Mr Hei, for defendant, stated that Nathan went into a local hotel to have a drink with somef riends. One of the ethers got the whisky and gave it to defendant to look alter. Defendant himself did not drink whisky and it was the first time he had e\cr been in trouble. Nathan was convicted and lined £2 with costs. SELLING WITHOUT LICENSE D. H: Croll and A. G. Croll were charged with a breach of the licensing law when not duly licensed to sell'liquor. Sergeant Isbister asked for the confiscation of the liquor. He gave evidence that on 6t:h Deeember the police seized a quantity of liquor on the premises. A watch •was kept and at about midnight a man was seen leaving the premise* with liquor. A search of the premises resulted in liquor being found in a shed." When interviewed Mr Croll said that he was agent for a wine and/spirit merchant. Orders were taken and when the orders arrived they were collected from the boat. Mr Hodgson, for defendants, said they were reputable business people and were caught by technicalities of the law. All the liquor was sold Un bulk. Every year the Opotiki district was canvassed by wine merchants. Grocery firms from Auckland also took orders for liquor. Other agents in the district canvassed the district for outside firms. Corbans did not warn defendants of the technical requirements to keep within the law. Crolls took delivery of orders and were m<uh responsible for payments. Croll col- ; lected from the customers and then delivered to the customers. Corbans should have warned, him of the

position. Mr Walton' made the following judgment: It having been proved that defendant was the occupier of the premises mentioned in ihe information, he is convicted and fined £15 and costs and the liquor seized by the police on such premises is hereby declared forfeited and shall be disposed of in the manner to be determined by the inspector of police at Gisbornc. The other defendant was convicted and fined £1 and costs.-