MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1500, 24 July 1912, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Sir. W. Ct. Riddell, S.M.)

GAMING ACT CHARGE. MARTINDALE ACQUITTED. At tho Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr. \V. G. Riddell, S.M., delivered judgment in tho case' in which Harry Martindalo was charged with • having paid out 011 a bet mado between Police Constable Souter and 0110 Scott. At the hearing, Sir JOIIII Findlay, Mnvtiudale's counsel; submitted that ' tho case shoilld bo dismissed. 'To bo an offender under Sub-section 3 (tho clause of the Act under which tho charge was made), tho person charged had to bo aware of the circumstances of the bet upon which 110 paid out; he must know, firstly, that the money which ho handled •was in payment of a bet, and, secondly, that it was'aii illegal bet. A bet could not bo illegal unless made with an infant or in a prohibited nlnce. Where was tho proof that MartiiuTalo had knowledge of theso things? Sub-section .1 was -drastic,., and. required broad interpretation; otherwise a message boy conveying the proceeds of a bet, or a barmaid who had been asked by a bookmaker to "givo this, amount to so-niul-so if he comes in" could bo incriminated, though they might bo quite unaware that theywere parties to a betting transaction. "Payment," he continued, "did not mean simply tho payment by tho messenger by whom the money was carried; it meant payment.out \of one's own money 011' behalf of someone who; made ,the bet/'

■In' the conrse of. his.'judgment; his Wor-ship-said that:'by--Sub-section IS-the prohibition was. he'thought, limited (in the case of paying a bet on behalf of another) to paying au "illegal bet." As the section was highly penal, the Court had, before convicting Martindale, to be satisfied that ho had been aware of tlie illegal nature of tho bet. Under all tho circumstances, he (the Magistrate) was not prepared to say that mens rea had been proved. Tho information would bo dismissed. ' '

' . OTHER .CASES. . For insobriety, James Groipr was fined .'Ms., Joseph Kenny i£l, and Felix Grant \ Georgo Hardingwas .;fouml guiltv on a charge of having-'damaged two panes of glass, valued at 1-ls., the property of Alrai Hallett. 110 was fined .SI, and ordered to make restitution. William John Williams was fined .£2 for-having assaulted John Oaklcrvrood. rii ? 1 ' . P wn remanded •I 1 1 ' - ou a ' charge of having com 1 -' muted, a certain offence. Bail was al-' ' f omß ''v r - }'■ J- Fitzgibbon appeared lor tho defendant. . Henry Sandow was fined .£2 for havin»" behaved 111 a disorderly manner whilo inebriated.

: THE CIVIi. SIDE. '(Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M ) OVER A THEATRE AT BLENHEIM. .- Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.,- delivered judgment in favour ot defendant in tho caso of Cornelius M Gluness. and Edward Parker mn- E'aintiff's claim was for a sum of Ai-o, winch, he said, represented a valuai . wsppctin? defendant's property at Blenheim, charge for work doue iii connection with tha ercction of a theatre at B.enhemi, and commission for obtaining tenants for. the theatre. His Worship said that tho case was one of-, agency, and that such a xelatiouship existed, and could only exist, by virtue of the express or implied assent ot both principal and agent, except in certain cases of necessity, in which such relationship was imposed by operation of law. Ine assent of the principal was implied whenever another person occupied such a position that, according to tlie ordinary usages of mankind, ho would be understood to have the principal's authority to act on his behalf. Throuehoub the- wholo of the evidence he could not find anything to show that the plaintiff "'"n of tlle defendant bv tho will of the defendant.

CART AND- THE WINDOW. • rt ' vur > S.M., delivered iudgment m the caso in which Thomas Coverdalo claimed ,£l2 17s. kl from W. E. Lutz, as damages alleged. to have "been. sustained through his plaie-glass window having been broken, by n cart of defendant's having been backed ;into. it. His Worship said that, ho had visited tho scene' of the "mishap, mid was' of opinion that it was a place in which a vehicle should not have been left unattended, even if tho. wheel was looked, inasmuch as there was no kerbstone, or other protection, to prevent a horso backin;,' into tho windows. Judgment was entered for plaintiff.

; ; . UNDEFENDED CASES! Tn: the following cases, which were token before Dr. Jf'Arthur, S.M., jiul"monfc was entered for tho plaintiffs, bv default :-F. W. refhorick v. Arthur Al•berfc M'Leod, £1 175., cost* vs.; \\\ Dim■oek and . Co., Ltd., v Robert Fibrov .bponsley, ,£tl 75., costs ,£1 10s Gd.; Ellis and Afanton v. Hallinger Bros., Ltd (Hastings), ,£IS) ts. Cd., costs .£1 13s. Gd. | K. G. Dun and Co. (as assignees of Grifhn and Sons, Ltd.), v AV. H. Franklin, t £-i 10s. 10d., costs 10s.; John Chambers ond Son, Ltd., v. Reinhold Scholtz, .61 12s.,"costs f>s.; D.I.C. v. Augustus F. Chamberlain, .£23 12s. fid., costs .62 lis.; eliington City Council v John Lawrence -Turnery £2 135.-5 d.. costs 55.; same v. Ernest- D. lifi.ge, .£2l !!s. Gd.. costs .61 35.; sati)o v. Francis Henry Walker. .£lB 2s. .id., costs ISs.; same v. Herein Elliott, ,£G 12s. 3d., costs !);. i lihimc.s and Co v. i Cook, ,£2, costs 10s.; Sutherland and Eankine .v. F. Ambridge, .S4 15s. fid,, costs 10s.;:.WolIernian and Co. v. Loo ICee, .£2O ■16s. !ld., costs X 2 145.; Henry Walker v. Harold Ogden, £5 10s, costs'lis. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Duncan Campbell was ordered to pay .1. Avisoii and IL'W. Williams <62 13s. 7<i. by August 0.