MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 97, 18 January 1919, Page 12

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

A VARIETY OF CHARGES

BREACHES OF THE LICENSING ACT Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M., presided over yesterday's session of the Magistrato's Court. Charles Priestley was charged with having sold liquor without, a license on Ilia premises at 149 Willis Street, The evidence of the police wns that in a recent visit to Priestley's premises they found something Jiko seventy men there buying liquor from the 'leFendniit by the bottle. A search of the premises revealed eighty-six bottles of beer and one of whisky. , Mr. O'Leary, who appeared for the defendant, said that the hitter was cnt-erinß a plea of guilty. He was a married man with four children, and was practically a '.'ripple. Before this offence he had always conducted himself well. He sold the to lodgers in his house.

His Worship said that he would take into consideration the fact that after the police 'ljiid detected the business Priestley had bt?en quite honest about his guilt, / and had revealed everything to the: police. Hβ would lie fined £20 and costs, instead of the maximum amount.

Amy Parker, barmaid in the employ of the Empire Hotel, and "flic-bard Dwyep , (licensee of the Empire Hotel) were charged with supplying liquor to two youths under twenty-on«_years of age.

The evidence given by \Sr.'gearit Lopdell was that the- licensee and his manager were in general very attentive to the observance of the law. On the occasion in question the witness was going through the bar, and lie would probably not have noticed the youths if one hail not evinced a desire to ef? face himself at the sight of the blue uniform. The lads were drinking "shandy." Both of the lnds gave evidence that the barmaid asked them if .they were twenty-one, and that they replied that they were.

■ His Worship said that the appearance of-the lads showed them, to his mind, to be undoubtedly less than twenty-one years of age. The barmaid must have had some doubt as to their age when she asked them about it. ' " .The police had no records of previous convictions against the defendants. - "

The Magistrate held that the barmaid had'been guilty of a form of carelessness. She would be fined £1 and costs. The licensee, whoso offence was held to be merely vicarious, was fined a similar amount. The youths implicated in the nboyo caso were each charged. with having obtained liquor by falsely representing themselves to be over twenty-one years of age. They were convicted and -fined £'1 each.

Edward Kemptoii was fined £1 ami costs for having boon found at pii illegal. l)our on tho licensed premises of the Cricketer's Arms Hotel.

CASES DISMISSED. A. J. Monro , (licensee of the New Zealander -Hotel) was charged with having; permitted drunkenness in his bar. -After evidence had been taken, the case was dismissed. Mr. 1 , . W. Jackson defended.''

Richard Mnitey.and Albert Sehierning were charged with having been found on 'licensed premises after hours. Both defendants satisfied the .Magistrate that tliey were not on the premises for any illegal ohject, and the charges against them were dismissed. i

A "FALSIfALARM."

Charles Bustard, a youth of eighteen, had been caught in tils act of amusing himself by ringing the Jolmsonville fire-bell at 8 p.m. on Christmas Day.

His Worship could not seo why the bell should have been Tiing at that time, but he waiv prepared to believe that' tlie boy thought he was taking part in some wny in the celebration of the season. It did not seem to be the,usual case of deliberate mischief. Bustard would be convicted and fined 9s. costs.

■ ; BREACH Ol' , THE PEACE. George.David rind Frederick Gleeson were charged with a breach of the pence. Gleeson did not appear. The origin of the trouble was the fate of, :a toy balloon' on New ""Year's Eve. It seemed from David's evidence thai David and Gleeson stood in the largo crowd in Post Office Square at midnight on'the last day of 1918. Both were sober. Gleoson, the owner of n toy balloon, suddenly had it burst, and he laid the blame for his loss upon David. That led to an exchange of blows, in which, according to David, Gleeson was the aggressor. Before the affair developed to any great extent a. sergeant of police took both of the men. into his care.

His Worship' dismissed the case against David as trivial. In view of the fact that there was no defence from Gleeson, the Magistrate fined him 10s. and costs.

ASSAULTS. Two employees of Ivory's stables were- .the parties to an assault case heard at the afternoon session of the Court. Alfred John Hudson alleged that William Morris assaulted him in the stable yard on December 11. Mr. Buddie appeared for tlie complainant and Mr. Jackson for the defendant.

The complainant said that on the date of the assault he received half-a-crown for certain work he had done for other men in the stable. Morris claimed that that half-crown was his, because -he, and riot, the complainant, had.done ,the work in question. When Hudson refused.to give up the coin, Morris smote him, violently on the nose,' and the nose suffered damage which-it cost'one: guinea to repair. £lie .'.defendant alleged, among other things, that: the complainant used bad language to him, and so provoked the. most serious blow, that was struck.

His Worship convicted Morris and ordered him to pay costs. William Murphy, a rat-catcher, wns convicted of having assaulted 1 William O'Brynn, and was ordered to pay costs. Ho was also bound, over to kpc*[> tlie peace.

OTHER. CASES. William Tames Lawton was fined £'1 for being drunk while in' charge of n horse and cart, and .Cl '.for using ohseene language -in a public place. Guy Coekburn was convicted of two breaches of his prohibition order, and was fined £3 for one of them. He asked for time in which to pay, mid His Worship readily granted the request, observing, "He always pnys up; he's one of our best clients." Along with the fine went, a'warning that if Ooekburn offended again he would find himself sent off to "the island." William Conrick wns fined £1 mid 7s. costs for breach of prohibition order. > Anthony Bannister was fined £1 for insobriety, and was prohibited. ;

James Hamilton, Edward Matthews,' and Joseph Poole were lined £1 each for having removed sand from the foreshore at Lyall Hay.

Allen Hamilton (Mr. P. W. Jackson) entered a plea of guilty to a charge of having in October driven n motor-car nlonj; tlio Hntt Rond at an excessive rate of speed. i\lr. Jackson said that the case had been sn often adjourned tlmt the defendant was willing to plead guilty

rather than incur the further delay that would be necessary if ho defended the case. The police alleged that the defendant was driving at thirty miles an hour. Hamilton was fined £1 and 7s. costs.