MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2827, 19 July 1916, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

ALLEGED' BREACHES OF THE LIQUOR LAW CONVICTIONS RECORDED. Neil Stuart Campbell, licensee oi the Bellevue Hotel, appeared in the Magistrate's Court yesterday to answer six obarges of selling liquor out of hours. Mr. T. Young appeared for accused, and Inspector Hendrey prosecuted. The charges were taken in groups, the first being alleged sales of liquor to Gunner V. W. WUlowley and Gunner W. G. S. Wallace on Easter Sunday, April 23. Inspector Hendrey, in opening the case, said that two men in uniform called at the Bellevue Hotel on Easter Sunday, met the licensee in the passage, and asked to be served with liquor. 'Ihe men were taken into a side-room near the entranoe, the door was locked, and liquor was produced from ft oupboard in the room and sold to tho soldiers. Gunner V. M. Willoughby said that he and Wallace came from Fort Ballancs on Sunday morning to Petone, and in the afternoon went to the, Bellevue Gardens, reaching the hotel about 3 pjn. They asked the licensee if they could have a drink. They were taken into a room just off the cntrancu, ami the door of the room was then locked. The licensee produced liquor from a cupboard. They ha 4 threo drinks each. He paid for tho first. Wallace paid for the second, and the licensee "shoutr ed" the third. William Gordon Stanley Wallace stated that on Easter Sunday he was a gunner in the Garrison Artillery, and visited the Bellevu» Hotel in company with the previous witness, wtose evidence he corroborated. . William John Willoughby, father of the first witness, stated that when his son arrived home' in the morning he was absolutely sober. After dinner he wont out in company with Wallace, and when he returned ho.was slightly under the influence of liquor. Mr. Young protested against the eyidenco of the last witness being heard, but after some argument His Worship ruled against counsel. The Clerk of the Court gave formal evidence. Mr. Young, for plaintiff, said; that military men frequented tho hotel, • and on Easter Sunday there were a iiuwber there. The prosecution had furnished him with certain details, hut not with tho names of the soldiers to whom liquor was alleged to have been illegally sold, consequently they had had no chance of investigating tho matter. Ho asked for an adjournment for a week, but this was refused. Continuing, Mr. Young said tho licensee was in the habit of questioning those wanting liquor. after hours, as to whether they were lodgers, serving only those he was entitled to serve. The prosecution, had been so long delayed that it was impossible for the licensee to identify tho persons named in the charge, and the dcfence was thorefore unable to present evidence in. rebuttal. His Worship said that he believed the evidence of the two young men, and on that evidence he must convict. The question, then, was one of penalty. In mitigation of the penalty, the licensee was called,' and said the date in question being Easter Sunday, there were quite a number of niilitarynien at the hotel. His practice was to - take boarders into the room refenod - to, and servo them with liquor from the cupboard. When in any doubt he invariably asked the person 'wanting drink whether he was a boarder.

Decision was deferred until after the hearing of the other charges. The second group of charges wero selling liquor during prohibited hours, and permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises, both alleged breaches, having occurred on Sunday, June 1. Gunner Victor Win. Willoughby, who was tlie principal witness, said that he went to the hotel on the Sunday in question, met. the licensed, and wenc into the side-room mentioned, in the previous case. He had no companion with him. In the room there was a soldier and two civilians. Witness had three drinks while there, and later oil in the afternoon went into the bar, where he obtained two' more drinks, and also purchased a flask of' whisky (produced). He was drunk, and fell asleep on the verandah of the hotel, fle was roused by someone about 10 o'clock, and he walked home, reaching there about 11 o'clock. When he went to the hotel he had 20s. in silver and some coppers, and when he came to his senses " ho found he had one shilling and ono penny. Ho had not been home the Saturday previous, and did not buy any liquor for use on Sunday. It was possible that he may have, had somo. liquor at his home before going to the Bellevue Hotel.

Mr. and Mrs. Willoughby, parents of the previous witness, testified that their son was quite sober while at home, and was intoxicated when he camo home at night. Mr. .Young, for the defence, said that they would prove that Willoughby camo to the hotel in an intoxicated condition, and was refused admittance.

Roy M'Cleary, a returned soldier, said ho was staying at the hotel on June 4, and was helping about the place. . He was- in the office when he saw Gunner Willoughby, who came up, and nsked witness for Ifr. Campbell.' Willoughby was then wider tho iuiluenco of drink. Witness told him to go out, and take a walk, and,,saw Willoughby go out of the hotel on to the pathway. Hp never ! saw him again until between 0.30 and 10 p.m., when on hearing a noise on the verandah lis was asked to find out what it was. He found Willoughby asloop. He roused him, and sent him away. Neil Stuart Campbell, tie licensee, also gave evidence refuting tlio story of Willoughby. He repeated his • ovidence about serving boarders with liquor on Sunday, and denied having served Willoughby with drink. Inspector Hendrey pressed the point,, but witness persisted. in liis denial. Witness thought that Willoughby was too "fuddled'' to know exactly what happened on that Sunday afternoon. John Henry Jenner, gardener at Bellevue, said he was on duty at the Gardens oil Juno 4, and saw Willoughby, who appeared to be intoxicated, go up to tho hotel, and a little later saw him go out and down the footpath. The Magistrate, in giving his decision, pointed out that he had no. reason to doubt the evidence of the Willotichbys, while on the other hand he could not credit tho evidence for the defence. He convicted defendant ou both charges, and imposed, a fine of X's in each case; with Court costs aj)d expenses for witnesses. The fines were subsequently- increased to -Co Is. each, to allow of appeal. On the conviction recorded earlier in the dar, the licensee was fined .02 with 7s. costs. POLICE CASES. Tho following police cases wero dealt with: — Lillian Jukes was charged with using obsceno language, and on the application of Inspector Hendroy she was remanded for medical treatment. Bertha Ogden, on a charge of vagrancy, was remanded to July 25. A first offender for insobriety was convicted and discharged, and another, who failed to appear, was fined 10s. George Henry Anderson was charged with drunkenness, and also with assaulting Henry Connock, and pleaded guilty to both charges. For insobriety he was convicted and discharged, and on the assault chargo ho was fined 405., in default seven days' imprisonment. Edward Jackson, who had three previous convictions for drunkenness, pleaded guilty to si charge of insobriety and also to using obscene language. On the first charge ho was fined 40?., the alternative being fixed at Beven days' imprisonment, and on the second charge he was fined <£3, in default a month's imprisonment. Charles V. Atkins, who appeared nn remand on a, charge of failing to comply with a maintenance order, was further romanded to July 21, oji tho same bail a3 previously fixed. CIVIL ACTIONS. Mr, W. G. Riddoll, S.M., gave judgment for plaintiff in the following undoi\l. M.nson, .£6 10s., costs 6s. (id.; J.

fended eases:—Kitto and. Soil v. Nedby S. Burn v. Raymond E. i'itzer, JS3, costs 125.; E. C. Brg.wne and C 0.,. Ltd., J. IT. Reynolds, ,£lO Bs. 2d., costs £1 13s. 6d.; Georgo and George v. .T, Soskey, .•SI 55., costs 55.; same v. Mrs. E. Barber (separate estate), Is. Id., costs 10s.; same v. H. J. Wynyard, £i 3s. Bd.; costs 10s.; James Mitchell Paul v. James .£ls 7s. 6d., costs 55.; Laery, Beveridge and Co., Ltd., v. W. H. Piatt, .£ls Bs. 7d., costs £1 10s. 6d.; Public Trustee (estate of Louis John, and William Fosbonder) v. Elizabeth Thompson, £21, costs £2 155.; Fulton and Co. v. J. A. Hamilton and Co., i£l 16s. Bd., costs 10s.; W. J. Staples and Co., Ltd., v. H. Reason, £5 3s. Gd„ costs £1 3s. 6d.; same v. W. Dagg, .£lB os. 5d., costs i£l 10s. Gd.; City Council v. Mary Josephine Hill (separate estate), ,£ls oa. 2d., oosts 155.; same v. Robert James TCells, £1 12s. 10d., costs 55.; Baker Bros. v. John Fraser, 10s. and possession of tenement, costs iSI 195.; Medallion Art Co, v. Mrs. Maty Bedingford (separate estate), 10s., costs ss. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Henry Matthew Stowell was ordered to pay Edward "Wilkie the sum of .£6 10s. sd. on or before 1, in default to undergo six days in gaol; Jamas W. Dalton was ordered to pay Kitto and Son the sum of £& Is. by August 1, with the alternative of seven days in gaol. DEFENDED CASES. In the case of Arthur Warburton and Co ,v. Wm. Butler,' a claim for commission on the sale of property, judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed- > Judgment was reserved on a nonsuit point in tlie case of Gotlieb Bros. v. G. E. Brydges, a claim for .£l4 6?. 6d. In tho action. Thos. H. Hislop v, Joseph Taylor and Sarah Jane Taylor, a claim for .£139 14s. 3d., beinfT amount short-paid about November, 1907, by defendant to plaintiff on a certain mortgage, judgment was given for defendant, but no costs were allowed.