MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 923, 23 June 1903, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning, before Mr Barton. S.M., Alfred Davitt was charged that on June 10th he procured liquor from the licensee of the Albion Club Hotel. Accused said he did not understand the charge. Ho bad received no liquor from tho licensee. His Worship : Not necessarily from Mr Francis ; it might be from a servant. Accused : I plead guilty in ignorance. I know nothing about it. His Worship : You had better plead not guilty. The Clerk read the charge again, and accused pleaded not guilty. Edward Harper, laborer, Makauri, deposed he met the accused outside the Albion Club Hotel, at a quarter to eight o’clock on the 10th inst. Accused asked witness if ho would procure him a pint of beer in a bottle, which witness did, not thinking that anything was wrong. Accused gave witness the money to get the beer. He gave the beer to accused. He noticed accused was under the influence of drink when he gave him the liquor. Alice Kirk, barmaid, stated she remembered the day in question, and that the previous witness purchased a bottle of beer similar to the one produced.

Constable Crawford stated that ho saw accused go towards the Jiaiti bridge, followed closely by Harper, after which he saw Harper hand accused the beer. ]fy accused : Witness took the bottle from accused’s inside pocket—not from Harper’s. His Worship said there could be no doubt of accused’s guilt. He should have pleaded guilty. Tbese cases were becoming very frequent, and if they continued the penalty would have to be increased. Accused was lined £5, costs 9s, or in default of immediate payment fiO days in gaol with hard labor. Edward Harper was charged with procuring liquor ior Alfred Davitt, a prohibited person. Sergeant Siddells applied to have the charge withdrawn. There was no doubt that Harper was taken unawares.— Granted SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ACT. The following parents were charged for failing to comply with the School Attendance Act Charles Cattoa, junr., Edward Currie, D. Hausen, and Elizabeth A. Hicks (Mr E. N". Jones). The first three were each fined Os, costs 7s, and the latter two chaiges were withdrawn on the application of the Secretary (Mr Quigley). Mr Quigley asked the opinion of the Court with reference to previous offenders who persisted in keeping their children away from school. His Worship said the Committee could proceed further. The only way was to enforce the Act. If the same persons were brought before him again he would increase the penalty. The Court would take care all fines were recovered, or imprisonment would follow in default of distress.