MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 February 1918, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

(Before T. Hutchison, Esq., S.M.)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7th

Tooliev Bros (Mr Wells) v. lvaponi Meihann, claim £6 9s Gd.—Judgment for plaintiffs with costs Bos 6d. T. Robinson and Sons (Mr. Wells) v. Griffen and Smith, Ltd., (Mr Hannan), a claim for £169 6s Bd, being an action on a guarantee given hv defendant to plaintiff over an hotel property in Ross. This case was heard at last sitting, when judgment was reserved. His Worship foitiicl that defendants had not proved any defence. Judgment was given for plaintiffs for the amount claimed, £169 6s Bd, with costs; court costs £3 6s; witness £1 1,7 s 4d; counsel £9 9s; total £l4 12s 4d/ JUVENILE COURT.

Previous to tile main sitting, Mr Hutchison held a sitting of the Juvenile Court, several lads from Rimu district being called on to answer charges by the polico of breaking and damaging insulators on telegrnph poles. The evideuce disclosed the destruction of a number of insulators. The defendants admitted the offences, and were convicted and admonished by the Magistrate, and each ordered to pay the sum of 2s towards the damages done. • LICENSING ACT.

H. Fitzgerald, charged’with being on licensed premises (Belfast Hotel) during prohibited hours, pleaded not guilty. Constable Kennedy gave evidence of entering the Belfast Hotel at 8.10 p.m. on 27th January, and saw defendant walking down the passage towards the roar. Followed and asked reason of being on premises. He said he had purchased on Saturday at 5 p.m., two bottles of beer, arranging to call for them next day. He had two bottles of beer uncorked. Defendants stated these were the facts. His Worship held that this was defence. A conviction would he recorded, and defendant fined 20s. FURTHER, CHARGES.

Fred. King (Mr Murdoch) was charged with supplying liquor during pi-o-hiluted hours, and George Shaw (Mr Murdoch) with selling liquor and keeping open during prohibited hours at Belfast Hotel. Both pleaded not guilty.

Constable .Kennedy gave evidence as, in the former ease. Tn the presence of licensee, the previous defendant had stated lie had purchased it tlie previous day, and that King had supplied the beer. King acknowledged that he lino drawn the beer and given it over shortly before witness had entered the hotel. To Mr. Murdoch—Shaw stated that this would not have occurred if he had been at home. Shaw’s hotel was very well run.

; Mr Murdoqh held strongly that Shaw should not bo penalised for the act that was done in express contradiction to the licensee’s instructions.

George Shaw, licensee of the Belfast Hotel, gave evidence that King resided with him, on some occasions helps in. the bar. Fitzgerald on Saturday, 26th January, at 5.15 p.m., paid for two bottles of beer, which, lie said he would call for Inter. On Sunday evening when on the wharf saw Constable Kennedy go into ttho hotel. Went along and saw him. with a bottle of beer. The constable asked witness if he knew anything about it, and he replied “No.” If he had been at home the beer would not have been supplied.

Fred. King gave evidence that Fitzgerald came in and asked for two bottles of beer he had ordered the previous day. Witness went and opened the bar and .gave the two bottles to Fitzgerald. Had instructions from Shaw before he went out to serve no one. Gave these two bottles of beer because they had

been previously paid for. The Court adjourned at 1 p.m

AFTERNOON SITTING

The Court! resumed at 2. p.m.. His Worship in giving judgment said i there were certain features that were j quite unusual. A customer had gone j to the hotel and bought two bottles i of beer on Saturday and was to ge- ] them later. The sale was only complet- ! prl on Sunday when the beer was drawn i Under all the circumstances he did not think that the licensee could be conj victed of selling while the second charge i 0 f keeping open was not sustained. ■ The 1 charges against Shaw would he dismissed. The charges against King of supplying was nroved and he would be convicted and fined £5.