BREAKING THE LAW

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVII, 14 November 1927, Page 5

BREAKING THE LAW

NAPIER MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Mr. A. M. Mowlem. S.M.) SOLD LIQUOR WITHOUT A LICENSE. That he did sell two bottles of beer without being duly licensed to sell lame was the charge preferred against Arnold William Stewart, storekeeper, of Tutira. Senior-Sergeant Powell carried out the prosecution, while Mr. W. G. Wood appeared for the defendant, i who pleaded guilty. The Senior. Sergeant stated that the defendant had a store at Tutira and for some time complaints of slygrog selling were made to the police. A plain-clothes constable was sent to the defendant and he was supplied with the two bottles. A marked pound note wa B tendered and the following day the police searched the premises and found the note and a quantity of liquor. The man supplied the liquor to men in the Public Works Department camps and was billed in his accounts as cauliflowers. A list of the liquor supplied to the defendant was handed to His Worship. Continuing the Senior-Sergeant stated that there was a possibility that the case was one for imprisonment. Counsel for the defence stated that . his client was a first offender, charged with selling two bottles of beer. There was no proof to substantiate the charge that the defendant had been selling liquor as cauliflower. His Worship wa B asked to consider only the fact that the defendant was a first offender under the section charged Defendant certainly did hiy liquor for people and was always paid for it prior to buying. He would certainly not do so again. “Have you seen this list of liquor bought?” asked His Worship of counsel, who replied that he knew his client had bought a considerable quantity. His Worship stated that he was In doubt as to whether he would hold over the penalty until he had heard proof of the statements made by the Senior-Sergeant, and challenged by counsel. “I would have not made the statement had I not first-hand information,” stated the Senior-Sergeant. "If I adjourn the case can you call witnesses to prove the statements?” asked His Worship. “Well, I can, but I don’t know that the witnesses would like to give the evidence,” stated the Seniorbergeant. “There are serious aspects about the case,” declared His Worship in fining the defendant £25, costs 10/-. MISCELLANEOUS CASES Cyril Glendinning was charged with procuring liquor on October 27 while prohibited, being in n hotel while prohibited, and also with procuring liquor op November 1 while prohibited. He was fined £3 on the first charge. £1 on the second and £2 on the third charge, court costs being 10/- in each instance. For having no lights on a car at night was the cause of David Barry being fined 10/- with costs 10/For being in a hotel after hours. William Stanley Cunningham was fined £2. costs 10/Albert Elms was ordered to pay costs amounting to 15/. for allowing a chimney to be on fire For riding a motor-cycle at a dangerous speed cost Reginald Notley £3 costs 10/-. On a charge of riding a motor-cycle across a n intersection st too great a speed he was convicted ■nd discharged. For having a motor-cycle without a silencer cost Thomas Frost Frater £2, •nets £1 0,