MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14889, 31 January 1914, Page 14

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr T. A. B. Bailey, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Four first offenders for drunkenness, two males and two females, were each fined os, or 21 hours' imprisonment, whilst a first statutory offender had double this penalty inflicted on him. Lena Hadling, charged with helpless drunkennoss and with procuring liquor whilo prohibited; was remanded for a week. , Mark O'Malley pleaded not guilty to procuring liquor for a prohibited person, tho defenco being that defendant did not know tho man was prohibited. Ho was convicted and fined £3 and costs. DEFENCE ACT. For failing to render service, Win. Beecroft was hned 40s and costs, "William Bishop 10s, Cecil Bradley 60s,"L. A. Burns 20s, R. H. Day os, Robert D. .Duncan ss, N. T. Dvor 40.., William Forgie 10s; Walter D* Fuller 10s, William Haines convicted and discharged, H. B. Hibbard fined 20s, Harry Hill 20s, Reginald Homersham 205," H. Lame convicted and discharged, T. It. Lee fined 20s, Archibald McDonald 6s, Joseph Rayner convicted and discharged, R. S. Rhind fined 20s, Edward C. Tozer 40s, Douglas* Whitcombe '10s, and Horace Charles Woodward 20s. IMPORTUNING. ; Mary Sllen Lloyd,.alias.Hughes, was sentenced to twenty-one days' hard labour for importuning passers-by in Hereford street for the purpose of prostitution. ' DISMISSED. j Honry Burton was charged with being deemed to be an idle and* disorderly person in that he had insufficient lawful means of support. Tt was stated that nothing previously was known against accused. The charge,against him was dismissed, the Salvation Army authorities promising to take him for a week. • AFFILIATION. , William Hoxman was adjudged the I father of an unborn child, and was | ordored to enter into a surety of £25, and to report himself twice'a week to the police. An affiliation charge against Albert Herbert Crozrter was dismissed. Mr E. T. Harper appeared for Crozier, and ;Mr Cassidy for tho complainant. v - LYTTELTON; (Before* Messrs G. iC. Smith and L. A. . Stringer, J.P.'s.) DRUNKENNESS.. A first offender for drunkenness was fined.ss, with the usual alternative. ASHBURTON., (Before Mr V. G. Day, S.M.) Judgment for plaintiff,, by default, was given in the case of the Ash-, burton Electric Supply Company v.. Waters and Bannehr,.a claim for £22., , Sydney Walters was fined 10s and posts for driving too fast over a foot, crossing; ]&. S. Gardner was mulcted, in tho sum of 5_ and costs' for riding, a:bicycle on a public footpath; and Ernest Webber, on a similar charge; was convicted and discharged. A charge again-t'Gilbert. Bray, of being in arrears with Jbis payments on an:'order under the Destitute Persons Act, was adjourned for a" week. ; The police proceeded against WilliamLaffey (iir. Buchanan) for giving an order for liquor without supplying his : naiho and address tjo.the licensee". ." Mr. -Juchannn said that th _ facts,, which were-'admitted .by the defendant,. were : that on 'thei previous days ho" drovo to.Chertsey.and got a five-gallon keg of beer and one hottle of. brandy, ho- being;at the time', a resident of the Selwyii licensing-district" On the way home the,keg,was broached, and the defendant got under the influence of liquor..' ' When arriving at Ashburton, lie made up his mind to,go to an old-age pensidner'.s where the absorption of liquor was .continued,' and finally tho police intervened. On. these facts the defendant was charged with having given an order for liquor intended to be taken-into a No-license district without. having supplied the person to whom the order was given with a statement in writing of his name and hddress. .. The question of law was whether the consumption of liquor in Ashburton was prima facie evidence of his intention to bring it into the district. Mr Buchanan, Contended that the evidence showed'that, there was no such intention at the time' of giving the pidor, and it was only after the defendant broached the liquor that he mado up his mind to continue consuming it in Ashburton. Sergeant Emerson, who conducted the case for the police, outlined the facts. Ho agreed that a fine point of law was involved. Tho Magistrate reserved his decision. Patrick Dunn (Mr Buchanan) pleaded not guilty to a charge of permitting a building to be used for keeping liquor in a No-license area. I Mr Buchanan said the evidence waus practically the same as in the former case. It would have to be proved that the- liquor had been taken over by Dunn. . The Magistrate said that it was no offence to allow liquor to be consumed on premises. In reply to the Magistrate, Sergeant Emerson said that liquor was not being stored by Dunn; it was temporarily kept there. Mr Day, after .referring to the Act. said it could not be said that Dunn was'storing liquor. It would'hav.'to be.proved that Dunn had the liquor in his possession, ard that Laffey had parted with the liquor to Dunn.' Mr, Buchanan said tho point which Sergeant Emerson wished to emphasise and to convict on was that, supposing a man took, a bottle of liquor to an office in the town, and it was consumed there, could the owner or occupier be charged with permitting his premises to be used .for keeping liquor? , It was agreed-to lct.~_lio case stand over for a w<*ck till judgment was delivered in Lnffey \. case.