MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1525, 22 August 1912, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Eiddell, 5.11.) THE "GUESTS." i SHAJffiOCK HOTEL CASE. ! . . CHAEGE FAILS. At Ibe ir.osistrate's ■ Court yestcitlev, l[r. W. G,,Ekl(lcll, delivered jwlsmont in the case in which John Shortis and John Dwj-or were charged viith liaving Ijpen found in tho Shamrock Hotel on Sunday, August 11. Tho information was laid under Section 1M of the Licensing Act, which reads as follows:— "Every person found on licensed • premises at any time when siiph i>remises are 'required by 'this Act to he closed is liable to a fine not exceeding '£2 unless he satisfies tho Ccnrfc that ho was an inmate, servant, or lodger , on'such premises or n boiie-fido traveller, or that otherwise his presence on such premises was pot in breach of the provisions of this Act with respect' to the closing of licensed premises." At the tearing of tbo case defendants, Shortis and Dwyer, and Rogers (tho licensee) deposed tlwfc Shortis and Dwyer had been on the promises on the Sunday in question purely as guest'; of Sogers. It was, said tho witness, a frequent occurrence for three to spend the Stincfcty together. At the conclusion of tho evidence, his Worship remarked that he thought that j tho iwn must he'convicted. Mr. E. M. Sladden. w'ho represented tho defendants, protested. He contended that nothing had been adduced to show that the defendants had not been honu-fido guests of tho licenw, and ho held that a publican v;as entitled to entertain his friends in 'his hotel on Sunday*. His Worship then said that lie would reserve his decision in order to consider certain (lutheirities referred to by JIY. Sladdnn and f>nb-Tn c pector Sbeehan. . Yesteukiy, Mr. IMddell «iid that he was not prepared to say Hint tho evidence showed that thp defendants hnd not been the guast.s of tho licensee of the hotel, and tie dismissed tho information. LETTER-CAEBIER ACCUSED. Frank Loasby Tocker iras cTinrged with having on or about July 3, 1911, delayed two postal packets, one a letter to H. J. Wig?, Greytown, and.the other a letter to A. H., Gile=, Pigeon Bush, Penthers. ton; on August 4, 1911, nt Greytown North, having delayed n postal packet addressed to I). IJ.1 J . Loasby. Greytoivn North; and on or about August 9, 1 fill, at GreytoKii North, havin? delayed a postal packet addressed to F. Corkfry, Greytown .N'orth. James M'llattio, postmaster, Greytowu Norrh. deposed that on August 5. 1911, lip hod viMtcd dpfeudant> "bach" in D-ilgety's oMcei, where they bad found, in some sacks. 7 letters. M newepapera,

19 small packet?, 17 Gazettes ami Hansards, unit Glii) circular*. Constable Connor .--tilled that when Tocker hod been interviewed in tlio oflico of tlio Chief l'osdiuislor, Wanstamii, Tooker had admitted having taken postal matter to Hie "bach," and iiad said that lio had left it (hero because ho had had too many packets, pic, to deliver. Tlio number of packets tluis treated liad become so croat that he had been ashamed to take them back to the post office, and so had left IHcin at tlio "bnch." Tocker pleaded not guilty. .He was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. Hail (,€3O) was allowed. "CONSOLIDATED STATUTES. -, , Charles Clement Fish appeared on remand to answer a. charge of his liaviii.?, on or about August 5, 1912, wJien he was a servant of tlio State, stolen a set of New Zealand Consolidated Statutes, valued at .£lO, the property of the State. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for th« defendant. Chief Detective, Broberg a.=ked the Court to gr.iut another week's remand. He paid that 28 sets of Consolidated Stalutes had .vet to to traced. Probably, still a further remand would be requested. Fish) was remanded till next Wednesday. INSOBRIETY. Pot insobriety "William Jones was fined lfls., and John Power -I'l.

CIVIL CASE. (Before Dr. M'Artluir, S.M.) BARMAN'S CLAIM OX EMPLOYER. Alfred Fisli, a barman, proceeded against W. J. Jorgensen, licensee of tho Caledonian Hotel, to recover £2 55., which, ho claimed, was duo to him in lieu of iS hours' notice of the termination of employment. Mr. A. H. llindmarsh appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. J. .1. M'Grath for the defendant. Defendant had paid £1 Ss. into Court. After hearing ovidence, his Worship decided in favour of tlio plaintiff for the full amount claimed.