MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 121, 15 February 1919, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THEFT OF BACON .. A SUBSTANTIAL FINE Mr. F. V. Frazor, S.M., presided at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, i.nd dealt with the police cases.

Richard, Bertram Hodgson pleaded guilty .to having stolen, at Ngahauranga, on February 1,3, five pounds of bacon valued at Gs. fid., the property of the ft.55. Bacon Company, Ltd. Sub-Inspector Emerson said that Hodgson was an employee of the company, and on tho date in question lie was seen leaving the factory with a bait which looked bulky; he was stopped, and the bag examined, when the bacon was found. The inspector said the man had borne a good character, and this was tho first time ho had been Wore the Court. There was no reason.-why this '-nan should have stolen the bacon, for his average wage was ,£ll per week. Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who appeared for tho accused, said that'althouffli tho man's earnings were ,£ll per week during the height of the slaughtering season, his earnings for the year averaged only .£1 per week. He was a. married man, and prior to 1 this had been of good character. The man had apparently been unable to resist the temptation to take the bacon.

The Magistrate said that thefts from employers were breaches of trust. He would not send the accused to prison, but would fine him in order that it may ba a warning to him and ethers. Hodgson was fined. ,£lO, in default one month's imprisonment.

OTHER CASES. "I have been suffering' from ague," was -the excuse put forward by Charles Arthur Glazebrcok, who was charged with his second offence for drunkenness. The Magistrate said that the man was not charged with suffering from ague but with filling himself up with'too much beer. Glazebrook was remanded for a week for medical treatment.

' William Woods, for committing a breach of his prohibition order, was fined '.£3, with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment, and for being found drunk was convicted and discharged. William. Freeman, who pleaded guilty to committing a- breach of his prohibition order, was,' on his , own request, sent to Roto R-oa for twelve months.

George C'onroy,'who also committed a breach ef his prohibition order, was leniently dealt with, because lie was a returned . soldier suffering' from shelland had'just received an- appointment in- tho Government 'service. Lenioney was shown; in the hope that Hie man would pull himself together. He was convicted and ordered to pay 7s. costs.

A lad 1 named Denis Bewlev pleaded guilty to bathing from the Day's Bay wharf. There is a- notice on the wharf prohibiting bathers from divinpr off thfi structure. Bewlcy was ordered to pay costs, 19s. 3d. >

SELLING. A RAILWAY TICKET. J. H. Bell and his wife were charged, tho former with offering a railway ticket for sale, and Mrs. Bell with selling, the ticket. The facts of tho case were that Bell was a soldier on home'service, and at the time of the influenza epidemic obtained a military railway, pass. Being unable to make use of this' pass owing to tho illness of his wife, he advertised it for sale in the "Evening Post." A special individual was told' off to call upon Bell at his house at the Lower Hutt,' and on arriving it was discovered that Bell was not at home, but Mrs. Bell was in, and sold the ticket far 155., warning the purchaser to bo careful to make use of the uamo of J. H. Bell, Mrs. Bell, it was admitted, was merely tho agent for her husband, and was convicted and ordered to pay 7s. costs. Tho defendant Bell said that ho thought he had a right to dispose of tl;.> ticket which belonged to him. Ho was unable to use the ticket, and) being at the time in want of money he offered the tio.koi: fov sale.

Tho Magistrate said that the fact that the defendant advertised the ticket for sale showed that he thought there was nothing wrong in doing so, but the fact that Mrs. Bell warned the purchaser to bo careful to make'use of the name of J. H. Bell indicated that there was seme idea that the business was not quite right. .He would not .impose a heavy fine under tho circumstances. Bell was fined 10s. and ordered to pay 245. costs.

LICENSING CASES. ' A man named C. Blackwood, for whom Mr. E. M. Beechey appeared, pleaded guilty to being in tiio Metropolitan Hotel after closing hours, and was fined 20s. and costs.

Arising out of the' a'tovc case H. R. Wallace, licensee of the Metropolitan Hotel, was cluvrged with keeping tho bar open for the sate of liquor, and also with ex-' posing liquor for sale. Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who appeared for Wallace, said that defendant did not deny that he intended to make'A sale of invalid stout to Blackwood. As a matter of fact ho was wrapping up tho bottles when the police entered the hotel. Wlion Blackwood asked for the liquor ho told him lie ought to have a medical certificate, and he produced such a certificate, which had been presented to him earlier in tho day. The police entered while Blackwood had tho certificate in his .hand, and the latter, by way of a joke, stated that the certificate was his. The Magistrate, after hearing the evidence, convicted tho defendant, and imposed a -fine of .£5, with costs 295. The license was not endorsed, for the Magistrate thought that it was' just possible that tho defendant believed,that Blackwood wanted the liquor for an invalid recovering from tho influenza epidemic.

AVilliam Simms, barman at the Pier Hotel, was charged with supplying liquor after hours. The chargo arose through a drunken man being arrested with two bottles of Jamieson's three star whisky in his. possession, which ho said he obtained from the hotel.' The defendant, who admitted that ho was drunk on/the evening in question, denied selling'the liquor. His duty was merely to clean out the bottle store in the morning. The Magistrate said that it was merely tho word of one drunken man against that of another, and dismissed the information.'

Arising out of the abovo case the licensee of the Pier Hotel 1 was charged with selling liquor after hours. Mr. M. Myers, who appeared for the defendant, said that the drunken man was found with two bottles'of .Tamieson's tliroo star whisky, which was not kept in the bar and could not therefore havo been obtained from there.. The whisky was kept in the bottle store. After hearing evidence the Magistrate dismissed the information. . , '

Hugh Gunn and Denis. Long were charged with being in the, Thistle Inn Hotel beforo tho opening hour. It appeared from tho evidence that Gunn went into the hotel before_ 8 a.m. _ for his breakfast, and went into a side room near the bar and. waited. Long, who was a stranger "to Gunn, followed him into the hotel and into the room. Long frankly admitted that he w.ent into tho hotel for a drink, .which lie could not get. Tho caso ; against Gunn was dismissed, and. Long,was fined 205., with costs 7s. ■J. and R. Berman, ' RichaTd Holdsworth,' and Howo "and Slowman,, hairdressers, were charged with failing to close their respective shops at 7 p.m. on January 21, as required by Section 25 of the Shops and Offices Act, 1908. It was shown in evidence that the defendants wero under a misapprehension, Jjukclosed their shops as soon as tho mistake was pointed out to them.. Taking this into consideration the Magistrate fined each of tho defendants 55., with costs Is.