MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2149, 3 August 1907, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

Friday, August 2. (Before Mr. Barton, S.M.) An inebriate—Marry Wilson, win nacl been previously convicted, wn lined £2 with 2s costs, m delanl seven days linprisonuient. lor liavinj ueen found drmiK in Unulstono road lireaelies oi X'ronibition Order.— oosepn iioilis, a muidie-aged man ad limed having on July 2-iiii. ontoret the British Motel during the currency ol a prohibition order against him. Sergeant McWilliams stated that tiie'defendant, when questioned, gave a fictitious name at- the bar.—The Magistrate reminded accused that it was just a month since ho had been convicted and discharged in connection with a similar oifcnco. On that occasion ho made the “excuse that ho had gone into the hotel in order to see a person about renting a house. Despite tho warning then administrated accused laid now deliberately >roken the order a second time. A ino of £5 was imposed, costs 7s; in lefaulfc 30 days imprisonment. There was no appearance of Martin llcLaugldin to answer a summons for .laving, on July 17th, entered the Masonic Hotel during the currency of a prohibition order against him.— Mr. Nolan appeared on defendant's behalf. James Alex. Wilson, barman at tho Masonic Hotel deposed thatthe defendant came up to the bar and called for a long beer. Witness asked him if there was not a prohibition order against him,, and defendant replied “No. If you want to know my name it is Joe. Williams." Wlfii™. ..ft- . :..r 1

tho man’s namo was McLaughlin, am that lie was a prohibited person.— Robert- McGorman, sample porter a tho Masonic, also gave evidence. Tin Magistrate expressed himself satis fied that, the barman had taken reas enable precautions before serving tin man. Defendant would be fined £1 in default fourteen day’s imprisonment.. Cyclists Fined.—George Laurence Evans, summoned foe* having made use of the footpath in Carnarvon street, for cycling on July 23, disputed the charge.—Constable Hancox stated that at about 12.10 p.m. on the date stated he noticed the defendant ride along the right hand side of the footpath for a couple of chains, cross over the road and continue on tho footpath in the direction of the recreation ground. The day was showery .and the road was in a very bad state.—Defendant: “I have ridden on the footpath, but' I don’t think I did on that day. You did not say anything to me about it, and the first intimation I received was this summons.”—Tho Magistrate said that he must beliove the constable’s evidence; his statement was positive, whereas defendant, was not sure about the date. It was not likely the constable would tell a falsehood just for the sako of securing a conviction. There was some excuse for cyclists, considering the state of the roads, but tho by-law could not be disregarded. The usual fine of 10s, with costs 7s, was imposed.—Richard Henry Clark admitted having ridden on the footpath in Gladstone road on the same dat'o, and was called upon to pay the stand-

HARBOR BOARD BY-LAWS. The Gisborne Harbor Board proceeded against a number of carriers for a breach of its by-law No. 152, which states:—“No driver or other person in charge of any vehicle shall take up any passengers or other persons on any part of any wharf within a distance of 30ft from the outer edge of such wharf, and no driver of any I vehicle or other person shall solicit fares or solicit for the carriage of any luggage, goods, wares or merchandise on any part of any wharf within a distance of 30ft from the edge of such wharf.” The defendants were Henry Poole, Michael Malony, Robert Hargreaves, Robert McCormick, Benjamin Hird, Wm. Burnnard and Frank Lowndes. The first case was that of Henry Poole, who pleaded “Nok Guilty.” Mr. - Stock appeared for tlio defence. Mr. T. Alston Coleman, who conducted the prosecutions for the Harbor Board, explained that under by-law No. 44 the control of the wharf was placed in the hands of the Harbormaster, and by-law No. 152 was intended to prevent drivers crowding tlieir reticles up against 1 the wharf landing. The practice of drivers backing in their carts to the staging opposite the gangway on the arrival of the tender had become a nuisance, as it hampered free ingress and egress to and from the landing and caused much ineonvience with the limited amount of room there. Instead of keeping qway 30ft from the edge of the wharf, the drivers persisted in backing right’ in, and as they had disregarded repeated warnings by the Harbormaster it was decided to institute proceedings as a remedy. The Board did not press for a heavy penalty, but desired to show that the by-laws would be enforced.—Captain Gumming, Harbormaster, , was called to give evidence. 'He stated that he was on the wharf on July 29th when the tender arrived after boarding the Miowera. He saw the defendant, Poole, on tlio wharf with several other drivers. Defendant was about 16 or 20ft away from the water’s edge, certainly not more than 25ft away. Questioned as to what defendant was doing at the time, witness replied “Nothing” (laughter). Defendant was standing close up to the gangway, but witness did not see him get any luggage, or hoar him say anything. Mr. Coleman, after putting one or two questions, reremarked that- the evidence was too indefinite to be of any use. “It is no use my proceeding, your Worship,” he remarked addressing the Bench. “I must let the case drop. The evidence does not coincide with my instructions,”—The S.M. “In the circumstance the case will have to be dismissed with costs.”—Mr. Coleman “Very well, Sir, there is no alternative.” After conferring ivith the Harbormaster, counsel announced that he wished, to withdraw the remaining summonses, owing to insufficient evidence. There had been a misunderstanding concerning the instructions.—Tlio S.M. granted leave to withdraw. —Mr. Stock asked for full costs on the usual scale.—Mr. Coleman pointed out that Mr. Stock appeared In six of the cusps. The defendants had banded together to bear their losses in common, t and under those conditions, he submitted, it would not. bo reasonable to allow full costs in each case.—Mr. Stock replied that he was there to defend bis cases, It. was no fault of Ills that the prosecution were not prepared to* proceed, and ho claimed the feo in each case.—The S.M. decided to allow 10s 6d costs in each case in which Mr. Stock appeared. In regard to the McCormick case, the only one in which Mr. Nolan appeared, £1 Is costs would be allowed.