MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 289, 2 September 1919, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

MASONIC HOTEL CASE

LICENSEE AND 1 BARMAN

I CONVICTED a "I am of opinion that in rcspect to each charge the case lor the prosecution r f has been established," said .Mr. E. l\igt, ij.iM., in tlio Magistrate's Court yesler' <lay ivlien delivering reserved decision in 5 the cases Police v. Louis I'ercivai ■ (J Uricn, licensee of tlio .Masonic Hotel, . ami M'llliani Smiins, bannaji at tlio . hotel. Juicli deleiulant was charged ' r with soiling liquor to ,a .--iiilor in u'niform named Jolm Jloivtii after closing 1 hours oil July l's, and of having sap. i plied Aiorna with liquor wlioii lie was already in a state of intoxication. At the hearing Sub-Inspector Einenion conducted ti'.e prosecution, Mr. 31. .Vlyers a'ppeaml for O'iirien, and Mr. H. i\ U'Leary lur Simms. The defence in racii cajs was based on two points: (1) that Jloran was a lodger and was put eft tne premises at about midnight on the dale in question as he refused to go to his rccm tinle;siie were allowed to take a bulldog he had with him, and (2) that Sinmis did not sup. ply any intoxicating liquor to Moiau but mwely 'gave him a glass of liniejuico and lemonade aucl that what the police took to bo beer was lemonade. The prosecution was based on the ovidenco oi Sergeant Lopdell'nnd Constable Munro, who watched the bar through a window. They testified that they watciied Sinmis supply Moran with several drinks from beer bottles bearing a dia-mond-shayed label. Uottles. answering somewhat to the description given by tlio polica were produced by counsel for the defence, but they contained lemonade. Before giving a decision Kis Worship decided to view the premises at nighttime from the same position as the police. ' After reviewing the facts ol' the case His Worship said- that assuming the booking of a bed gave the sailor .the status of a lodger it appeared to him to bo established that the booking did not take'place until shortly before midnight. H'is tVorship said that in his opinion the police officers were not mistaken as to tne particular liquor supplied to Moran and that at tho time ho was supplied ho was not a lodger. The evidence showed that beer was continued to bo supplied to Moran after he was in a state of intoxication. Sub-Inspector Emerson said that in 1916 Simma was lined JC3 for selling liquor to a person already intoxicated. Tho licensee had not previously been be- , fore the Court. His Worship fined the defendant Shums .£5 on each charge, and tho licensee £\ on each charge, remarking that the barman was directly responsible for the whole trouble. PROBATION ABUSED. Edward Gregory Barrett came up for sentence oil a charge of theft from his employer in March last. On March 1G last, before Mr. F. V. Frazor, S.M., Barrett was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when tailed upon within two years on a charge of failing to account to his employer tor variouj sums totalling .£'2o. Barrett had appropriated the money whilst employed as a milkman by William Henry lteid.

He was admitted to probation on the following terms: (1) Report to the probation officer; (2) abstain from intoxicating liquors for two years; (3) keep away from racecourses and billiard saloons for .two years; (1), keep off licensed premises; (5) accept cr leave employment only witu permission of probation Officer; (C) refund the .£2O misappropriated and to pay witnesses' expenses, !lOs., within six months.

The probation officer (Mr. T. I'. Mills) reported to the Magistrate that Barrett had broken practically all the terms cf his probation. His Worship decided to remand him for sentence by Mr. F. V. Frazer, ■ who is now- in tho city. Tho accused will probably come up this morning. Bail was refused.

TWO YEARS' REFORMATIVE TREATMENT. SA sentence of two years' reformative treatment was imposed on a young man named John Joseph Serine, who 011 Fri--0 day last pleaded guilty to a cliargo of \ theft of a box of 'cigarettes, valued at W £2 183., the property ■ of--a Chinaman A named Joe Tos. Merino entered the \ shop of Tos on Thursday and ordered |) a bottle of ginger beer, and during the 1 absenca of tiie proprietor stole a box f of cigarettes. He was remauded, for i) sentence pending the report of the proV batioa officer. Q Mr. T. I'. Mills (probation officer) said a that the accused ay as a victim to drink, f There was a warrant out for Devine's $ arrest, for failing ttfYpay a fine on any other charge of theft. f His Worship entered a conviction and \ ordered accused to undergo two ydio' f reformative treatment'. V OTHER PROSECUTIONS. f Charges of disorderly behaviour whilst | drunk, using obscene language, and of ref f-istiiig Constable .l'etcr Munro were prea ferred against James Loftus. In MaiiV neiis Sfc-eet on Saturday Laftus was beP having in a disorderly manner, and on a being arrested used obics-ne language and / resisted the arresting constable. Loftus y w-iis fined X 2 on the c'harges of using the V language and resisting the police, and f for the disorderly behaviour. The dea' fault was fixed at-21 days in gaol. [ Frederick Cecil Bedweil was remanded $ to appear at. Auckland on i'r.day next K on a charge of forgery. It is alleged f that on January 25, at Auckland, he 5 forged a cheque for .£67 155., purporting [ to bo drawn by Mrs. R. S. Hcdson on 7 the National Bank of New Zealand .at | Dargaville, and caused Samuel Marry to I act upon it as if it were genuine. 9 Frederick Charles _ Sims was lined i for committing an indecent act. 9 A fine. of. Ji2 was imposed on John f Crailc, who resisted Constable David ' Frost in t\ie execution of his duty. The accused was being arrested for drunkenl ness and resisted violently. On the ) charge of insobriety-Craik was fined ss. \ Tlireo first offenders for drunkenness were lined. 10s. each, and a fourth was ) fined fo. Frederick Nicholson was rei immded for a week on a charge of holp- ' less drunkenness.

MAINTENANCE CASES IMPORTANT EULINGi. A cleaver understanding as to iLit: law respecting defaulting husbands in nuiintainiuce eases was arrived at when Mr. E. Page, S.M., was dealing with maintenance eases. M-r. G. G. Watson, who appeared.for the wife of iv man who had been charged with failing to maintain his payments under iv maintenance order, said that tne defendant v.-.is Xi in arrears, but at (he last moinont had paid that amountinto Court and thereby cleared himself so far as that information was concerned. The point that counsel wished to stress was that, according to a previous ruling, tlits defendant could be charged only in respect of arrears up to a dato—fourteen days prior to the issue of the summons—whereas ho submitted that under the Act any person defaulting for any period of fourteen days was linblo to a line of .£3O or six months' imprisonment. In the case in question tlio defendant was actually still £3 in arrows and tho only course open .to his client was to institute further proceedings for tho recovery of this amount. His Worship said that it would hp quite in order for counsel to specify tho arrears up to date, and the Court would have jurisdiction to deal with the matter in full. lie did not consider _ that it would bo necessary to have the information amended for defendants would bo liablo to u penally if they defaulted foi iourteen days. Percy Stewart Ijullnn was ordered lu pay ofcl per week towards the support 01 two children ill the Anglican Hoys' Howe I and also to pay off arrears amounting to '

llonrv Hodgson, whose arrears in respect of a maintenance order amounted to ,£3, whs sentenced to 14 days' imprisonmiint, wamint to be suspended soiling as ss. per week is paid off the arreais und tho original piiymonti of .CI per week is maintained. William Alexander Gregory was ordered to pay 30s. per week towards the maintenance of his wife. l\>r disobedience of a maintennnco order in arrears to the extent of .£B, William James Elliott was convicted and ordered to pay M Is. coats.