MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2233, 9 November 1907, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

FdUDAY, NOVEMBER. 8.

(Bcforo Air. W. A. Barton, S.SL). Drunkonness. —Frederick Kempston, charged with being drunk in a public place, was convicted, and fined 10s, and costs 2s. Selling a Firearm to a Person under 10 years.—John Lloyd, a youth, was charged with the above offence, and pleaded guilty, stating that he did not know ho' was breaking ithe law.—Sergeant Williams conducted the case for the police, and stated that ho did not ask for a heavy penalty, as nothing of a serious nature bad happened.—His Worship agreed, and inflicted a nominal penalty of 2s Od, with costs of "Court of 7s. Carrying Firearms, Being Under ■the Ago of 1C. —Arthur Hedges pleaded guilty to this charge, .and*was fined 2s (kl and 7 s costs, the Sergeant remarking .that- this -was tho .first caso under the Act in .Gisborne. Driving a Vehicle After Hark ” ithoiitLights.—James Graham Vincent was charged with driving a vehicle without lights. Defendant pleaded guilty, stating that ho had been driving a long time, and this was the first occasion on which ho had gone out without a light. Ho was fined 10s, with 7s costs of court. Alleged False Declaration.—James Gilbert Watt was charged with having on 24th July, 1907, .made a false declaration under the Marriage Act. Mr. Stock appeared for the accused, and Detective Mnddern conducted tho prosecution.—Henry Ernest Hill stated that lie was Registrar of Marriages for this district, and know accused, who eamo to liis office on July 2-ttli, 1907, to-apply for a marriago license. .Witness asked him tho usual particulars, -.which he gave, .and th e papers were filled in in the usual manner. Head tho form, and accused signed it. "Had -asked the usu-al-questions as to ago of accused, and also as to the age of the young lady. Told accused (that if he swore wh.it was untrue ho would be committing perjury, • and accused remarked, “4 suppose if it is wrong I -will get jug.” -Witness further stated that he had issued the certificate, but bad not handed it to accused, as h 0 liad not the necessary money -at the time. He next saw accused at his (witness’s) private house on the following Sunday, when lie cam e to pay .the fee, and witness then told him that •lie had found out -the young lady was under age.' To Mr. Stock: Certificate was never handed to accused. He had received the fee from witness (before telling him about the young lady being under .age.—Charles Alexander Frazer stated that the accused had hoarded at his house from November; 1906, until about May; 1907, -and that during that time had been paying his addresses to witness’s" daughter, Mary Elizabeth, aged 16. Early in last July witness met accused in the street, -who asked him then for his .permission to marry the daughter. This was refused, as the girl was too young, and witness ■ told him then she was not 17. Next saw accused on July 22nd, -and his consent was again asked. On .being refused accused offered him £lO to givo his consent, and this also being refused, accused offered him £lO to remarking that he had £4O in tho Savings Bank. Witness told accused - that he would never consent- to his

eased Then said ih 0 would marry her in spite of witness, .who told him to be very careful what ho did that lie should* not get- into trouble. Accused- replied that lie would no do anything rash, and -knew -what ho was doing. To Mr. Stock : His only reason for refusing consent was the age of the girl. Ho was aware that ‘his wife had consented .to their being married When (the girl was IS. Accused had been .paying attention to his daughter for some months, and appeared to be greatly. .attached to her. Elizabeth Frazer corroborated tlic evidence of tli 0 previous witness and stated that she had given a provisional consent to the marriage when the girl reached the age of eighteen .years. Was perfectly sure that accused knew the girl’s age- Accused came to (witness on July 22nd and asked -for her consent to ah immediate marriage which she refused. Ho thereupon offered £-10 and £2O •fqr the consent' and. was told that “money would not buy her.” To Mr Stock: Her daughter and accused were extremely fond of one another' and accused appeared very anxious to get married, -and if the girl hadbeou eighteen witness would ha-vecon-sented. Thought accused was hn honest straightforward young man -and one who would make a good husband. Mary Elizabeth Frazer, daughter of the previous witness, stated that accused had .been paying her attentions while he was a hoarder at her mother’s house; she liad told lnm tint she was only 16. -To -Mr.Stock: Was engaged to accused .and liad arranged to got married some day. Accused was very fond of her and she was willing to marry him if the parent’s consent could bo obtained. Had told accused that her home life was not a very happy one—Accused, on being ■questioned, pleaded not guilty and was committed for trial to the next sitting of tho .Supreme Couf.t in March 1908. Bail was allowed, self in £4O and one surety of a similar amount.

Breach of Building By-laws.—M;ic-krell and Colley were charged with having failed to place sufficient lights on an obstruction in Lowo street, Mr Colley appeared for the firm and Detective Maddern for the prosecution. Constable Scott stated he was on duty in Lowe street at 8.30 on October 29th when he saw the obstruction in Lowo street insufficiently lighted, .fit had a lamp placed at each end only,, oho of which was alight at the time. To Mr Colley: Was perfectly sure ika-t" tkere was no liglit in the centre of .the obstruction. Con ' stable Chas. Davy gave corroborative evidence, stating that only one lamp ' was burning and that there was no ■light in the centre. To Mr Colley: The .time he saw the obstruction it was about 8.30. For tho defence, August Frederick Dittaner stated that he was a general-laborer for .Messrs Maclcrell arid .Colley and his duties included -tho lighting of lamps. On the’night inouestion had lit three lamps and placed them on the obsstruction, one ’at each end and one in the middle. Had seen, them again at 7.30 ip.m. and at 10.30 p.m. when they were still alight and when lie Came to work on tho following moinin<r at 6.45 a.m. all three lamps were burning. To Detective Maddern: Was at bazaar at the Theatre on that night. Lamps were visible from Gladstone road. John lloger Little, in reply to Mr Colley, stated that lie could not say if there were three lamps burning on the night in ques-

tioii, but lie knew that at was tlio custom to have three' lamps. In liis opinion two lights would be sufficient. To Dotcotivo Mnddern : There is no obstruction on tho footpath. Ho had never seen a lump on the footpath <*>ido of tho obstruction but on tho road side. To His Worship: Both lights would bo visible from Gladstone Road. His Worship stated that in his Opinion, on it-lio night in question there Wore not sufficient lights on the obstruction and defendants would bo lined 10s with costs of court 10s. Claim for Work Done. —Fred Hall sued Wm. F. Sinclair for work dono and material supplied in connection with alterations to Tohign Bay hotel. Mr Nolan appeared for (tlio plaintiff and Mr Stock for defendant. Plaintiff deposed that tho amount of his account with defendant had not bee'll paid. To MrStock: During the time work was being dono was a partner with defendant in the Tolaga Bay hotel, Tho partnership was dissolved in July 1900, Prior, to receiving a certain snni for his interest liegotatioiis hud been carried on and lie hud offered defendant a sum to go out which was not accepted. lie eventually received £IOOO for liis interest in the partnership. At (this time. no mention had been made of the installation of an .acetylene gas plant in the presence of Mr 1). Barry and defendant. If partnership had not been dissolved would

have been settled by tho partner's. To Air Nolan: Partnership was dissolved as from June 30th 1906, and at the time work was completed ho was not a, partner. Was perfectly clear, .there was no mention of a gas plant-. James Smith Allan , stated that lie was plumbing [manager for plaintiff. The account produced was, with one or two exceptions, mado up from his books. Defendant asked

for an estimate of the cost of installing plant which was given him after which he authorised tlio work to bo dono, and a start was made on sth March; in eonsequeneo of additions suggested by defendant estimate was increased to present amount. Defendant- called to see him about the .account 2 months ago and stated that it was too largo and that .plaintiff was liablo for .a portion of it. To Mr Stock: Original estimate was for £lO6 and alterations brought this amount up. to £124 10s. Witness Was not sure if plaintiff sent him to Tolaga Bay. This concluded tlio evidence for tho plaintiff and Mr Stock addressing the Court stated that the defence was that tlio total amount claimed should be included and covered by ithe £IOOO paid to plaintiff for -liis partnership interest. Wan. Frederick Sinclair was called, .and stated that lie gave plaintiff £IOOO to go out of partnership. He had first off ered plain t iff £BOO to square everything .and filially agreed to give £IOOO. . Thought that this amount should include the present claim. To Mr Nolan : The- first offer to .plaintiff included price of gas plant. Cave' instructions for sale note to be prepared avhicli lie afterwards cancelled. Rees Jones gave evidence as to having been employed on the work in question. This concluded the evidence. His Worship intimated that he-would give, his judgment the following morning at 10.30.