MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 9, 5 October 1907, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tho ' two presiding Magistrates at tho S.M. Court yesterday were kept busy all day long. (Before Mr. Riddell, S.M.) UNSTAMPED BREAD. - Alexander Nichol was proceeded against by Constable Green, Inspector of Weights and Measures, on a charge of having made for salo at Pahautanui, on September 21, a two-pound loaf deficient in weight, and also for not having legibly stamped what purported to he a two-pound loaf. A plea of not guilty was entered. Mr. Wilted appeared for the defendant. Constable Green • stated that he visited Nichol's bakehouse and weighed fourteen two-pound loaves, which averaged from three to five ounces off two pounds. None of tlio loaves bore any stamp. Witness produced one loaf, ; which weighed lib. lloz. Defendant informed him that he had lost his stamp, hut had got another' one, and he only had forgotten to stamp the loaves on the morning in question. Witness also weighed what purported to he a four-pound loaf, which only went 31b. 12oz. To Mr. Wilford—lt was not necessary for defendant to put the number on a loaf if the loaf was intended for the baker's private'use. He had been up at Nichol's bakehouse a month 'previously, and had found everything in order. To Sergeant Phair—No reference was made as to tho loaf having been made for Nichol's own use. , ■ . . Mr. Wilford- stated that tho Adulteration Amendment Act of 1895 provided that before an offenco could bo committed the bread had not only to be unstamped, but it had to be proved that it was made'for sale. Under the statute a special defence was allowed,. which stated that if defendant could show he had allowed, a proper margin for evaporation in baking no offence was committed. . Defendant did not rely. on that, but contended that the bread was made, not for sale, but for consumption by his -family, and that the constable had been told so.- If the bread was made,'for sale, defend-, ant had tho right to make up the deficiency in weight. It was admitted that the bread was not stamped, because it was only intended for tho use of the baker's family. . ■■'■■■■ , Alexander Nichol, , tho defendant, stated that the loaves the constable saw and weighed were unstamped, and •were, baked for his-own- use. The constable came to tho hakehouso at about 2 p.m.', and tho bread for delivery had been taken out about 10 a.m. All the bread taken out that day was stamped. , His Worship, referring to the-first charge, said the main evidence was that of , the Inspector and of the defendant. There was a discrepancy be- 1 tween the evidenco of these two-par-, ties. Both might bo equally honest ; in'their statements, but there was certainly- a serious discrepancy. He was not prepared to say defendant had made the. bread for sale j; and would .dismiss tho information.'. ■ A SLY GROG.CASE. ■An information' laid under tho Licensing Act, 1881, was preferred against Charles Mercer, dealer, and owner of a fish and chip shop at the corner of Tory and.Holland Streets, charging him.with having, on September 8, sold whisky to David Gibiion without a license. ■•.-■■'" Sergeant Phair prosecuted, and Mr. •Hordman appeared for the defence; For. the prosecution-it'was stated that Gibson was searched by the police, who gave him 2s. 6d, and told him to go into Mercer's shop. When Gibson returned from tho shop he was again searched'by the police,,who found in his possession the whisky in' question. '-,•.'• It was contended for the defence that Gibson went through 'Mercer's shop to his own house at the back, where ho had some whisky, and that no liquor was sold to him in Mercer's shop. • , - ■'..-'. ■In giving his decision, His Worship stated that Gibson was. a ' person' addicted to drink, and-although ho admitted having had a considerable amount of liquor on. tho Sunday morning/yet both constables who searched him admitted that he was not drunk. Defendant. suggested. that.; although Gibson entered his shop he procured tho liquor, from his own house. It had been stated by Gibson that he made a practice of getting in a supply of liquor for Sunday, but it seemed to his. Worship that a man: with Gibson's capacity for liquor would have left a small quantity, if any quantity whatever, in his own house if ho had a freo hand, and could consumo it as he chose. The onus was on defendant to show on the. facts that'lie did notsell the whisky to -Gibson. It seemed to him that defendant had not discharged that onus, and lie was not inclined to believe tho statement that Gibson . asked permission to go through to his own house, and that shortly afterwards ho Teturned. The time between Gibson leaving the constables and. returning to them was too short to permit of his going to his own house and filling the bottle. There was also tho probability of Gibson being a drunken person. Defendant would bo fined £25, with £1 Is. Mr. Hordman asked what was the default, and was informed by tho clerk of tho Court that it could not be fixed until the return of the distress warrant. DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR. A young woman, Jean McKay, was charged with having, behaved in a disorderly manner whilst drunk and on a second information with having usod obsceno language. Accused plewled not guilty, amidst sobs and toars. Wm. Jones, engineer, stated that ho saw accused in Willis Street at 10.15 p.m. on Thursday night walking along with a man who shook his list in witness's yace. Accused: ''You liar 1 I nevor did." ~ Witness continuing said ho went to call a constablo to arrest accused. She ran up the street'-and tho man went up an alloy way.

Accused: "That's another lie." Constable Packer deposed that he got the namo and address of the man; but accused would not give hers. Whilst ho was speaking to accused she was bumping neoplc who camo along the street. Ho then took her into custody. • In answer to Station Sergeant 1 hair accused said her only remark was .that the constable was an amateur policeman. His Worship said he considered the first, charge proved, and for this offence convicted and fined accused 10s., in default of 48 hours imprisonment. On the second .charge, said His Worship, there seemed some doubt on tho matter, and accused would get the benefit of that doubt. The second information would be dismissed. . ■ A JOHNSONVILLE STORM. Sureties of the-peace were applied for by F. P. Simeon against-Frank T. Moore and Alexander May, on tho grounds of their having used insulting languago to liiin at Johnsoiivillo on September 10. Mr. Weston appeared for the prosecution and Mr. Gray for tho defence. In opening for tho prosecution Mr. Weston stated that the trouble" arose at a meeting of the rateuayers of the Johnsoiivillo Town District when a loan proposal for the purpose of supplying the district with acetylene gas was considered. Simeon was ' a considerable landowner in .the'district, and was present at tho meeting as'ono of tho ratepayers to opposo tho proposal, which wag supported Moore and May, who were respectively chairman and member of the Town Board. During the course of the debate May made use of certain languago towards •Simeon. ■ He was not. called to order by the chairman,. who subsequently himself used language, defamatory to Simeon. . Evidence in sunport of tho statement. was given by Simeon, who : denied the allegations made by Mooro. For the defence Mr. Gray, contended that the whole matter was a "storm in a tea cup," and that Simeon had absolutely.no just causo to. fear that the remarks—which were mado in the heat of tho moment—would' be repeated. Evidenco was then called. Tho defendant, May, stated that ho was,annoyed by Simeon, who suggested that witness was being paid by tho Acetylene Gas Company for pushing its business. _ Moore deposed that he had spoken m the heat of tho moment, and would ' not be likely to repeat the words. Witnesses were called to prove "that May's remarks were spoken in tho iheat of the. moment. • ■■•■• :■■ . His-Worship dismissed the casej allowing costs (£1 125.) .'against Moore, v.. MINOR CASES.' •'.''■ Henry Wallace, on a-charge of hay. 'ing used obsceno language in Parliament Street on September 23, pleaded guilty, and asked for " a show to get out of tho place altogether."- He was convicted, and fined £5, with-17s. costs, in default, twenty-one days' imprisonment. '~.,. , . , Robert' Green, for drunkenness in Lamhton Quay, was; fined 10s, in default, throo days' imprisonment. Wil-. liam Murphy was fined 10s., in default, forty-eight hours' imprisonment, for a like offonco. Three first-offending inebriates .were convicted and discharged. . •'.' ' ■' ■' _■ 'Charles Bethell, charged with having' allowed horses to wander-'in. Buckle Street, was convicted and fined 10s,, with 12s. costs, in : default, three days' imprisonment.Alfred Russell : pleaded • guilty to having left a horso and vehicle standing in Lambton Quay -without anyone ' in. attendance. His Worship, stated that a horse attached to a..vehicle,left in a narrow street;, with so much traffic on'it as Lambton Quay, might lead ,to a serious accident. Ho would fine accused 10s., with 7s. costs., or in default, forty-oight hours', ■ imprisonment. Sampson Williams appeared on a somewhat similar charge, and waa fined 10s. and 7s costs,.or m default, forty-eight hours' imprisonment. Michael Kearney, expressman, appeared to answer a charge'of having gone on to the platform of the Government Railway Station on' September 6 for the purpose of soliciting hire. Defendant pleaded not guilty. A fine of 10s., with lis. costs, m default,: forty-eight hours':imprisonment,' was i imposed. Charles R. Barringer was fined £1 and £1 Bs. costs . fpR having commenced to repair a' building without first having lodged with the City Surveyor an application for permission to carry out the work. _ . ' , (Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M,) CONCERNING A COLLISION. W. H. Smith, expressman, of Wellington, claimed. £63 from the Wellington City Council for the loss of two horses on August; 9 through collision with a tramcar at tho corner of Johnston Street and Custom-house Quay. Evidenco for plaintiff, was to the effect that tho accident was the result of the motorman's negligence in looking behind him, the increased speed of the car at the-. point in question,, .and tho failure of tho motorman to ring the bell. For the defqneo it was contended that tho accident was caused by the negligent driving: of Harvey, who was in charge cftho express, in attempting to cross in front of tho moving car, and in crossingthe road at more than a walking pace. A legal point was raised _by Mr. O'Shca, for the City Council, to tho, effect that, oven if there was . any negligence, tho accident belonged to the class known in law as " inevitable," for which no damages could be recovered. Two witnesses were unable to give evidenco owing to indisposition, and by arrangement with counsel the caso was adjourned to permit of tho witnesses being in attendance. Plaintiff was represented by 'Mr. O'Regau. ' CIVIL CASES. '■'.-: Judgment was given for plaintiffs by Dr.' jl'Arthur, STM., in the following civil cases:—Robert Marlow v. John Sweeney, £2 195.,-and costs 55.; Herbert James Wyatt v. Wm. Aubrey, £1 15s. 2d., costs os.; Wm. Wiggins v. Thomas Tait„ £19 155., costs 15s. j John Edward-Butler, Ltd.', v. Arthur Henderson, £23 3s. 9d„-costs £1 Gs.; John Dutbie and Co., Ltd., v. Henry Burke, £20 17s. Oct., costs £2 4s.'; Herbert James Wyatt v. Amy Shorter, £4 Is. 4d., costs Us.. , . .