MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1545, 14 September 1912, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.) ~ FINED £20. CASES OF WALES & LE SEUR. THE BAKER RUSE. In tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, Mr. W. G. Hiddell, S.M., delivered judgment in the cases against Harry Wales iind "Paddy" Lo Scnr.' It had been alleged iigaitist. Wales that on September ■) he, being a bookmaker, did Bet with Police-Constable Charles Smyth in tho licensed premises known as the" Duke of Edinburgh Hotel. Le Seiir had been similarly- charged with having made a bet with Smyth in the New Zealiindor Hotel. Evidence was given to the effect (hat Constable Smyth, disguised as a baker, had gono to the hotels mentioned and made'beU with Wales and Le Sour. In the course of his judgment iu Walcs's rr.se, his Worship snirt thut lu- was. satisfied that Wales had made a, Viet in the Duke of Edinburgh Hdt»l. IMcndant, his Vorsto continued,- hid given no ev|.

dence, but the prosecution had to show thut Wales was a bookmaker before he could be convicted. In addition to Smyth's evidence , as to what took place in the hotel, Senior-Sergeant Riitledge and Detective-Sergeant Cassells had tkscribed Wales as. a bookmaker. Mr. Justice Chapman had said: "A inan may be a bookmaker one day, and ndt a bookmaker the day before, or the day after. A man who acts as a.-bookmaker is ;t bookmaker. It'is not necessary to find when he Aecame one. 'Evidence must be forthcoming to prove the status, and that is all. It may consist of preparations, acts, or declarations, and oven of acts done - subsequently- to the moment of mnk.ing the bet charged. When the evidence is sufficient to establish the status that status is a proved fact not referable exclusively to any particular moment of time." ' • "I think," continued Mr. Riddell, "that Iho evidence is sufficient to show that defendant was acting as a bookmaker on September 4, and as such made a hot with Smyth on liec-i.M-d inemiscs ■ on that, date." Wales was fined .£2O. . . Le Sour, also, was fined .£2O. SHOP-KEEPERS FINED. James Cartmer and James Lockio were charged with having failed to close their sbons by 7 o'clock in'the evening. , Mr. P. J. O'Kegin anpeared for Cartmer, and said that his client's breach was altogether inadvertent. Cartmer was fined 55., with costs 13=. Leckie was fined 55., with costs "s. His Worship stated that the defendant lind written a letter of explanation to (h-a Court. OTHER CASES. Walter Hill was fined JE2 for having behaved in a disorderly manner on the wharves. Margaret Mary Humbling, who was ebarged with ine'brietjy was remanded till September -20 for curative treatment. Trances Elizabeth Trengrove was srrantcd separation from her husband, William Henry Trengrove. The gunrdhnship of the children was given tn the wife. Albert Hanson was fined £", in default seven days' imprisonment, on a. charge of his having assaulted Sarah Falonn. For having alloivod stock to wander at large, Alexander Lindsay was fined 55., with costs 95., and James Henry Hocking, 55., with costs .£1 ■(?. Gd. ' Joseph Brough was fined 10s. with costs 75., for having failed to send a child to school on the prescribed number of days in a certain week. Hugh Doherty was fined £3 for having ErocMred liquor : while he was prohiiled. For having failed to attend military parades, Patrick Dunn, Llewellyn Mitchell Deslandes, Charles Henry Tucker, William Charles Whittington were each fined 55., with costs 75.; and Albert I?e<rinald Beavis, Victor Fnrness, John Sidney Guildford, Samuel Eobertson Murray, Frank Peltingill, Patrick Quin, and George Robert Downes were each ordered to pay Court costs 7s.

CIVIL ACTION. (Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.) THE:MILK DEAL. Charles Arthur Whitmore Mockton and Herbert Hiley Stafford . Aldington, farmers, Otaki, sued the Nutricia > Milk Company, Ltd., Wellington, to recover .£63 165., which plaintiffs alleged was due for milk sold and delivered to the defendants between April 1 and April 29 (inclusive), 1912. The defendants counter-claimed for JEICO for alleged breach of ngreoment. The defendants set out that in October. 1911, the plaintiff company had entered into nn agreement with the defendants wherebv it had been agreed that the plaintiffs should, from April 1, 1912, to Julv 31, 1912, supply the defendants with all the milk produced on plnintiffs fnrm, exthat required for household nurnofes. Defendants said that plaintiffs had broken this agreement by not supplying any milk since May 1, 1!)]2, Through this, defendants snid. they had suffered damage to the extent of ,£IOO. Mr. Anderson appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. M. Myers for the defendants. Decision was reserved till September 19.