MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2141, 17 March 1908, Page 1

MAGISTERIAL.

CHARGE AGAINST A PUBLICAN

PERMITTING DRUNKENNESS

MONDAY, MARCH 10

(Before Mr AY. A. Barton, S.M.)

John Thomas Inviu (Mr Bright) proceeded against Geo. Patterson Priestly (Mr T. Alston Coleman) tor having permitted drunkenness on the vVaerenga-a-hika hotel on January -9. Informant gave evidence that on January 20th ho was a mounted constable and visited the \Yaeroiigu-n----hika hotel, of which defendant was then licensee. Saw one Robert McBretney in the tap-room in a drunken condition. Stephen Priestly 'vas in charge of the bar. Spoke to Priestly regarding Mcßretney and askeu what he was doing there. Priestly saying “Oh, he’s slacker.” Witness Von ejected Mcßretney. A few days later Mcßretney was lined for having been drunk on January 20th. By Mr Coleman: When Mcßretney was ejected felt- sure a- charge of permitting drunkenness would lie against • defendant. Reported the matter to the Sergeant the same night or the next morning. Could not say if the sub-inspector had declined to prosecute. There were no glasses in the tap-room. Mcßretney was sitting right opposite the slide and within two feet of the door. Saw no table about and did not think Mcßretney was leaning his head on it. When Mcßretney was ejected, one Beatson asked to be allowed to take Mcßretney home. Had not this been done witness would have taken Mcßr.a--ney. to town. —Re-examined : Priestly said Mcßretney had been on the premises for about half an hour on iho day in question. Spoke to George Priestly just after Beatson took McBretiiev away. Priestly said : “Make this ns' light for me as you possibly can, as I inn going out of here very shortly.” Witness said that 'f lie did not report the matter lie himself would get into trouble. Drew Priestly’s attention to Mcßretney going' up the road, and. Priestly said, “That’s hard luck.” —By Mr Coleman: Did jiofc say to Priestly when Mcßretney went away, “I intend to make trouble out of this.” Mr Coleman in opening said That the evidence given did not disciase an offence. Even*admitting that the man was drunk when ejected, there could be no offence unless it was proved that the licensee or his servant knew for some period of the man’s drunkenness. The barman said Mcßretney had been in the bar for half an hour, but there was no evidence as to how long the moil’s drunkenness had been known to the licensee or his servant.

George Patterson Priestly, defendant, said lie was licensee of the AVaj-renga-a-hika hotel on the day in question. After ejecting Mcßretney informant came to witness and sa ; d he would mike trouble out of the •.natter. Witness said it was hard lock seeing lie was leaving the house so soon. Had previously been on good terms with informant. Saw Mcßvotncy being escorted up the road by Beatson and Mason. He was trying to pull himself away from them. Was '.about two or three chains away Horn Mcßretney, and could sec that lie as not drunk—By Mr Bright: Mcßretney was generally a very sober man. Knew nothing about Mcßretney 1 , viug drunk three decanters of f berry in ono day. Saw Mcßretuev walking along the road alone, having lurt Beatson and Mason. Mcßretney was then about half a mile away.—Re-, examined: When he said to informant that it was hard luck tint he was going to mako trouble, i.e (.witness) did not. know 'what tho character of the trouble would be. Stephen Priestly, barman at tho Waerenga-a-hika hotel on January 20, said Mcßretney arrived at the F tel about 10 a»m. and left between 2 and 3 n.m. In that time Mcßretney had four drinks of sherry and water. He had the first drink at 10 o’clock, two before dinner and one between 1 and 2 o’clock. Mcßretney was asleep on a chair when informant came in. Mcßretney was not usually a heavy drinker, but for a few davs previously ho had been frequently at the hotel. Regarding Mr Bright’s question as to Mcßretnoy’s drinking three decanters of sherry ,witness said lie knew McBretney had drunk one decanter of sherry ‘ and water. When informant came into tho tap-room witness told him Mcßretney was asleep. Informant then dealt nine blows to McBrotney with his hunting-crop. McBretney woke up and started to go nut, but informant pushed him out, forcing him to his hands and knees. Informant then pulled Mcßretney along, and when witness last saw informant he had his knee in the small of Mcßretney’s back. Did not remember if lie had said to informant that Mcßretney should bo taken out. Mcßretney was certainly not drunk, but ho was slightly under the influence of liquor—By Mr Bright: Know of no reason why Mcßretney should bo removed from the hotel. His evidence in a previous case was right in the particular that he might have said to informant that Mcßretney was “slacker.”.—Re-examined: Tliero was nothing in Mcßretney’s manner to show that ho was drunk. If ho had asked for another drink witness would havo given it to him. Robert Mcßretney, farmer, A\ ae-renga-a-hika, stated that on January 20th ho visited the 'hotel on two or three occasions. He had been much about the hotel previously because bo was looking after business regarding a public hall. It was about nine years previous to January 20th since he had previously touched liquor. On the day in question had three drinks before lunch. Had been told he had another after llnch but could not remember about it. After lunch went into the tap-room. After his ejection tho first thing he remembered was parting from Beatson about a quarter of ’ a mile from tho notch Then walked alone- to liis home abon:a mile further on. —By Mr Brig.it:. On one occasion had drunk three uecaliters of sherry and was quite sober afterwards. Thought it was the Friday following the trouble at t! e hotel.—Re-examined: The decanters would hold about half a pint each. Charles Howard Beatson sanl he escorted Mcßretney up the road not because he was drunk, but merely to take him awav from informant. McBretney was slightly under the in-fluence-of liquor but was nor, drunk.— Bv Mr Bright: Was not prepared to believe that four drinks of showy spread over four hours would make a man under the influence of liquor. The S.M. said that there was no doubt the ill a n was drunk on the v remises, hut as the licensee was unwell on the day in question the 'uie would not be large. Defendant would be fined £3 .with costs £1 Bs. '

INSULTING LANGUAGE

“William Peryer (Mr. Bright) . proceeded against J miw MeComiskey (Mr Mann) lor having mod insulting words with intent to provoke u. bieuch of the peace. Defendant pleaded “Not Guilty.” Win. Peryer. contractor, said that on February 17th he saw tefendan:in Lowe street near Mileohu’s auction mart. Defendant asked w.t.u'ss if he was going to pay to defa idant six shillings left by one mslnny with witness for defendant, 'vanoss’s nartner said the money '-as not owing, and witness relueed to pay it. In a. very loud voice defendant several times called witness a thief and an embezzler. On previous occasions defendant had asked about the money, but always m a civil manner. Had great difficulty in restraining himself from hitting defendant.—By Mr. Mann; Pid not

owo defendant any money. Had never promised to pay the money. Got defendant to repeat the words complained of to Mr Bright. Tho first time the words wore used they vere spoken in a very loud voice. 1 i Mi McGowan gave ovidenco of hnv■g been called upon to listen to what ‘ •fondant had said.—By Mr Mann:

'be discussion was ail ordinary hot , He did not hear anything until his attention was called to the circumstance. —Re-examined : Persons passing could hear what was being said.

F. C. Wilkinson- said that, on tho occasion in question ho was about twenty yards from informant and defendant' About half-a-dozen times hoard the words complained of used bv defendant.

' Mr Mann called the defendant who deposed that plaintiff owed him money and he had asked often for a settlement-. On the Saturday before February 17th saw defendant, who promised to pay later on. On February 17th defendant for tho first time refused to pay. Witness liiado use .of the words complained of in ail ordinary tono and was not very excited. Defendant was excited. Had been incapacitated for work for about nine months. The S.M. said ho felt suro the language had been used and had been, used to provoke a breach of the peace, ff the money was owing defendant bad his remedy in a civil action. Defendant would bo lined 10s, with costs £2 2s, in default 7 days’ imprisonment. Fourteen days’ time was allowed in which to pay the fine. FORGING AND UTTERING. Nopia Jones Haua (Mr Bright) appeared on a chargo of having at Patutalii on March 3rd forged and uttered a cheque. John Micky Taylor, hotelkeeper, Patutahi, said that on March 3rd accused came to his hotel and sold him some fish. Accused had a drink and tendered in payment a cheque for £7 0s 9d signed “Jackson.” Gave accused £7 in change. Before changing tho cheque asked accused whose it was, and accused said “Jack-soil, Knitnratnlii.” Accused said lie had been working among Mr Jackson’s sheep. Lodged the cheque with tho Bank of New South Wales, and it was marked “no -account.”

Mnximillian Jackson, slioepfanner, Kaitnratahi, said he did not know accused. Accused had never worked for him. Had never paid accused any money: Tho signature on the cheque produced was not his. • Frank Dalton McGovern, accountant, Bank of New South Wales, Gisborne, said the cheque was paid in on Mareli. Gtli, but was handed back to Taylor.

Acting-Detcctive Skinner said he saw accused at To Aral on March Bth .when ho was arrested on the present charge. Accused said he had got tho cheque from Jackson, Kaitiratalii, in payment for shearing done for him. Sergeant ’Williams gave similar evidence. Accused pleaded guilty, and was committed for sentence to tho Supreme Court in Auckland, bail being allowed —accused in £IOO and two sureties of £SO each. OBSCENE LANGUAGE. Cornelius Thomas Brosnahan was charged with having used obsceno language on March Util. Accused pleaded guilty, but said he remembered nothing of the offence. Sergeant Williams said the offence was committed in Childers road on Saturday afternoon, when there were a good number of people about, and within the hearing of females. Tlie iS.M. said obscene language was becoming far too common, and ho imposed a lino of £3, in default 14 days’ imprisonment. .... LOUSY SHEEP. John W. Bright was proceeded against by the Inspector of Stock on two counts for having exposed liceinfected sheep for sale. Tho S.M. said that a short time ■ago lie had made a light fine because tliero was a scarcity of water, -hut at the date of the informations there was nn abundance of water, and ho would, in conformity with his announcement at that time, have to now increase t-ljp fine. Defendant would be fined £2, with costs 7s, on each information. Similar fines wero inflicted against the following:—lV. G. Sherratt (Mr Burke), Vernon C. It. Mitford, Harry Riddick. Georgo Scott pleaded not guilty to the charge. Wm. Ross, Inspector of Stock, said that oil February 27th he attended t-lio salo at Matawhero, and in pen 94'found lice on one sheep. Put a ticket on the pen to show that it would be necessary to mako arrangements for dipping the sheep before removal. The lousy sheep were marked. Defendant saw witness and said the marked sheep did not belong to him. Defendant admitted that the sheep probably joined his flock on its way to tho yards. Witness pointed out, that the finding of one infected sheep was held by the Act to prove the infection of the whole flock.—By defendant: Looked through the pen at defendant’s request to see if any others were infected, but found none. The sheep in the pen had been carefully dipped. The infected sheep was branded differently to the rest m the pen. ~ , , , Defendant- gave evidence that Jus brother brought 176 slieep to the sale. The sheep had been dipped a week previously. When the- slieep ueie counted out of the pen one more slieep was found, which was diitei-en-tly branded to the rest. The S.M. said tho case was not ono calling for a penalty, -and'the information would be dismissed. A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, \ lad, aged 13, who had previously pleaded guilty to the theft of a cheque for £4 os, was again brought forward. . The S.M. said it was difficult to know what to do- with the lad, and granted a remand till April 6th to euable further inauiries to be made. DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was dealt with in the usual manner.