MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 30 January 1920, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, JAN. 29tli. (Before E. C. Levvey Esq., S.M.) AFTERNOON SITTING. The Court resumed at 2.15 p.m. LICENSING ACT. The police charged A. Cowie licensee of the Post Office Hotel, with supplying liquor after hours, and two men with being on licensed premises after hours. Mr Murdoch appeared for Harding and Cowie, a plea, of not guilty being entered by each defendant.

A. Cowie continued that the bar was locked and also the front door. To the Sergeant—Had invited these men in on sevfcral occasions to have a yarn. The two men gave corroborative evidence tc that of the licensee.

His Worship in giving his decision said in regard to the two men charged with being on the premises during prohibited hours, he had grave doubts about the truth of their story. There were very suspicious circumstances indeed. There was a doubt, however, and the charges* would be dismissed. With regard to the charge against the licensee, continued his Worship, he had no doubt! that it was a trade habit to invite persons in, and he was going to mark his opinion of the offence to fit j the circumstances. On the charge of permitting liquor to be consumed after I hours, a fine of £2O and costs 7s would , be inflicted. ! Sergt. McCarthy then asked leave to withdraw two other charges arising out of the same circumstances. I On tiie application of Mr Murdoch the. sum of £45 was fixed as the bond, in view of an appeal being made The Court then adjourned till 10 o’clock next day. FRIDAY, JANUARY 80th.

The Court resumed at 10.30 a.m. LICENSING ACT. Police v. John V. Hall. The hearing was continued, Mr Murdoch appearing on behalf of the defendSergt McCarthy went in the box for cross examination. Defendant stated that no authority had been given to Mrs Slmdbolt to sell liquor. He had been absent from the hotel at the time. He had no reason to disbelieve Hall’s statement that lie knew nothing about the sale. .Mr Murdoch said the defence was that there was no knowledge or complicity to the sale bv the defendant, to which Mrs Sliadbolt had pleaded guilty. Maria Hall, wife of the licensee, stated oil the day referred to Mrs Sliadbolt, wife of an intending purchaser of the property, was in the hotel. They had been in the bar taking stock of the liquor and had finished. Witness then went upstairs to get another list that had been mislaid. She then came downstairs, when the Sergeant came in. H? asked if anyone was in the bar. She said she-did not think so. He said open the door. She did so and was surprised to find two men in the bar. Mrs feliadbolt said she had given the men a drink. Witness had no idea that such would have been done. To the Sergeant—Did not remember the Sergeant asking twice to be let into the bar, before she opened the door. Did so on the first asking. Witpess left Mrs Sliadbolt in tlip bar, washing some glasses. Everything else had been don,-.

To the Bench —Witness had the keys of the bar that day. Mr Hall generally held them, hut lie had complained of being unwell and had gone out. John Vine Hall, licensee of the Occk dental Hotel, stated on the day in question lie went for a walk over the bridge in the afternoon. Did not know anything about Mrs Shndbolt serving liquor until he returned. He usually attended to the bar,'and he only gave the keys to Mrs Hall to enable stock to he taken. This was all the evidence.

After hearing Sergt McCarthy briefly on the law points involved, his Worship said .lie‘could not hold tiiat the wrongful action of the stranger (Mrs Shadbolt), without any color of right could bind either the licensee or his agent. The three informations would he dismissed.

In connection with the conviction against Mrs Shndbolt, a fine of £5 and costs 7s would he inflicted. There had been two or three of these instances lately and they have got to stop.

AFTERNOON SITTING. Police v. Henry Les Bulforcj charged with tin* theft of £3 18s, tho property of Philip A. Kortegast, pleaded guilty. Sergt McCarthy stated there was a further charge that would he withdrawn. Sergt McCarthy referred to the record of-the accused who was 20 years of age, and suggested to the Bench that a period of reformative treat men twquli he advisable. Tlitf Worship sentenced accused to one month’s imprisonment to he cumulative to that at present serving and that lie he committed for twelve months’ reformative treatment, such as the l iisops Board shall direct