LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1551, 21 September 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT. , ■ (Before Mr. W. G.-Riddell, S.JI.) MRS. BENNETT'S, NEWTOWN. AND THE TRAM MEN. CASE "CLOSE TO THE BORDER-" Gertrude Bennett's restaurnnt at Newtown was tho subject on which a decision by Sir. Riddell, S.M. (given in the Mngistrato's Court yesterday) largely centred. In this case Mrs. Bennett (restaurantkeoper, of 262 Riddiford Street) was charged with having kept liquor for sale within tho Wellington South No-License district, and with being the keeper of premises, in a No-License district, maintained as a place of resort for , the consumption of intoxicating liquor. At the hearing the Wellington Southpolice deposed that they had raided tho place after 2 o'clock on the morning of September 7, and had found seven men in the dining-room. The police also stated that they had found a quantity of liquor on the premises. At tho conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution, Mr. M. Myers, counsel for defendant, had submitted that both cases should be dismissed. The most which could be said for the prosecution, ha contended, was that there were some circumstances which might be suspicious. There was absolutely no evidence to the effect that Mrs. Bennett had kept liquor for sale on September 7. Neither had the police adduced any evidence to sustain the other charge.

The Six-months' Liquor Bill. In giving judgment, his Worship said that tho principal evidence against Mrs. Bennett was that relating to the quantity of liquor which had been taken into, her boardingbouso during tho last sis months. There had, also, been evidence of the fact that persons had been found on the premises at a late hour on September 7, and that persons had been seen there at late 'hours during a period of four months, during , which time the police had watched the place very closely. There was conflicting evidence as to the state of the tramway men who had been found in the house at the time of the police raid. But the charges were that Mrs. Bennett had had liquor in her house for sale, and that she had kept the place as a resort for the consumption of liquor. Not "Conclusive Proof." The facts that quantities of liquor had been found in tho house, that quantities had been taken in regularly, and that men had been found in the house at a late hour were some evidences in support of tho charges, but not conclusive proof of them. And one of the facts brought before tho Court was that, while the police had watched tho place for a considerable time, there was no evidence that drunken men had been seen leaving it. "Must Have Bee'n One or Two Fairly Solid Drinkers." The defendant had'given an explanation, and, although the quantities of liquor were considerable, and there must have been one or two fairly solid drinkers in tho house, his Worship was not prepared to say from tho evidence that tho liquor had been consumed by the men found on the premises, or sold to them. There had been a shortage of three, bottles out of defendant's beer order received that day, but lie doubted that, even if. the threo had been consumed by the men ivhpm the police hod found in the.house, it would not have had any effect,on them. In the face of the evidence given by outsiders as'to defendant's hospitality, his Worship thought that there ■ was somo element of doubt' as to whether or not she was guilty of the charges ■ mado against her. ■ ,

"A Very Suspicious Case." . The case, was a very suspicious one, and, of course, if persons like the tramway men and the defendant placed themselves in such circumstances as called for the action of tho police they must tako the risk. His Worship was not prepared to 'say that there had been liquor sold, or that the house had been kept as a "resort." ,- , "It is very close to the border line," he concluded, "but she must have the benefit of the doubt. The case against her will he dismissed." V MILK CO. CHARGED. The Nutricia Milk Company was charged with having sold milk which had been, adulterated with water. Mr. H. H. Ostler prosecuted, and Mr. M. Myers appeared for the defendant. Mr. Ostler- said that an inspector had taken samples of milk ■ from various agents, and that on the revelations of the analyses of these samples, tho charges had been based. Inspector C. A. Shauer deposed that he had taken the several samples of milk concerned from defendant's agents. Ho said that his experience went to show that the lnctometor .was not an absolutely reliable milk-testing appliance. Mr. Myers said that under Section 13 of the Salo of Food and Drugs Act it was provided that the vendor of watered milk should be convicted unless he proved that ho had taken all. reasonable steps to ascertain that in selling the milk he would not break the law. Mr. Myers said that, though thero were occasions on which the lactometer was not absolutely reliable, it was the best quick test which could bo made, and tho only one which could be applied in .the ordinary course of busiuess. The company, also, tested with the Babcock tester as frequently as possible, and at times samples of milk' were sent to the Department of Agriculture for analysis. - Sir. Ostler submitted that the company had not taken all reasonable steps. The manager of the company had admitted in evidence that although the lactometer test had been applied the Richmond adjustment table had not been used in conjunction with it even though that were highly advisable. The company had been prosecuted on a similar charge in June, and since then had not sent any sample to the Department for analysis. If the tourt were to hold that the- company had taken all reasonable precautions, the Act would bo useless. Decision was reserved.

OTHER MILK SELLERS. On charges of their having sold milk adulterated with water, Christine Morris was fined .£2, with costs .£1 18s. 6d.; Ada Jamieson ;Sl. with costs £1 18s. 6d.; Staverley and Weight, .£l, with costs ,£1 ISs. 6d.; and Hannah Richardson was ordered to pay costs 17s. 6d. OTHER COURT CASES. James M'lutyre was ordered to pay Court costs 7s. for having ridden a bicycle at night without a light. William R. Ingram was charged with being tho owner of a bull-dog which attacked Walter Thomas AVnnl on the beach at Oriental Bay on September 1. His Worship reserved docisiou. For their having left vehicles unattended in the street, John , Philip do Sausa was fined 55., with costs Us.; and William Andrews £1, with costs 7s. For their having permitted animals to be at large C. and A. Odlin, Ltd., were fined 55.. with costs 75.; and \\ilham John Monaghan 55., with "s. costs. James Bates was remanded to appear at Chrii-tcuurch to-day on a charge of his having failed to maintain his wife. Joseph George Wood tras made tho subject of a prohibition order. For having failed to attend parade, George Swinerd was fined 55., with costs 9s. For their having failed to render th* personal service required by the Defence Act, the following wero convicted, and the majority of thorn were penalised in small sums;—A. E. fflllins O. V. Dmvnp.s A. Dowhps 1,. W. Greenwood. A. C. Keisonbors. -T. Ma.'on, H. M. Mover, ami J. G. Phillips. . For their hoving failed to attend annual training camps, tho. following' w.v* to'ind suiltr. and tb« majority of th«m were penalised in small jutus;—,lT l An - .

drewsi William A. Baillio, John F.Bown, John Thomas, F. Uurlwrough, G. Chillis, Arthur Gray, A. Hooko, Thomas James ICuinis, Arthur Sargeant, Joseph Taylor, and Harry Warner. For insobriety, Peter Butler was fined 10s., and Terence Jl'Alwr £'i. DEAR TRAM HIDE. (Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.) William Joseph Forking "'as charged with having failed to pay train fare on August 2G. Mr. E. C. Lovvey appeared for the accused, who said that-ho had not noticed the conductor call for the fares. Ferkins was fined 10s., with costs £3 10s.