MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA

Hokitika Guardian, 22 April 1920, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA

THURSDAY, APRIL 22nd,, (Before E. C .Lewey, Esq., S.M.) CADET CHARGES. ‘Staff Sergeant-Major Mclntosh, charged W. J. Freitas with failure to attend parade as a Cadet. His Worship adjourned the case for tliree months, giving a warning of the penalty if regular attendance were not made. Same v. LA... W. Dale, a similar charge A similar adjournment and warning was made. Same v. Wm. Kelly, a similar charge Adjourned to next sitting. COSTS allowed. On the application of Mr Murdoch who appeared for a plaintiff, in a ease in which.the amount involved had been paid ip at the last moment, £2 2s. costs were allowed plaintiff’s counsel. LICENSING ACT. Police v. Winifred Hawkins, a charge of unlawfully supplying liquor. Police v. J. J. Mclntosh, a charge of selling liquor after hours at Rod Lion Hotel and of allowing liquor to be conl sinned after hours. , Police v. W. F. Diedrichs, a charge of being found on licensed premises after hours. Police v. W. P. Morgan, a charge of Being found on licensed premises after hours. t Sergt. McCarthy appeared fpr the pos lice and Mr Murdoch for the defendants. .

On the application of Sergt McCarthy it was resolved to take the charge against AY. Hawkins first. Mi* Murdoch stated that the whole defence rested on the claim that Diedrichs was a boarder. Sergt. McCarthy, gave evidence that on 27th March aibout 10 p.m. in company with 'Const. Quinn he visited the Red Lion Hotel. Went in by the front door, which was open. Went into room next to bar. Two young men were sitting with drinks in their hands. He said “boarders” and they- said “yes.”

Went into next room saw two men (Diedrich and Morgan) talking. Asked Diedrich if he were a boarder. Neither men answered, Morgan then said they had come from Park and Murdoch's office, and were talking business. Near them were two empty glasses, that had apparently cpntaiped beer or shandy. Got np answer in reply to a request for an explanation. Mr Morgan later said that Mr Diedrich had come in from Ivokatahi at 9 o'clock and they had come there to talk business. Got no further explanation. Morgan is a local resident and Diedrichs a farmer at Kokatahi. Then told Const. Quinn to get the licensee. Miss Hawkins said he was out. The latter then stated that she had given the men two drinks. She had not been paid for them, but

one of ths men was going to pay for them as soon as he cashed a cheque. Asked why she had supplied the drinks, she said she knfiw she had done wrong , but they had askpd for drinks and slip had pot liked to refuse them. During the period no reference was made to either of the meg lieing a boarder. ' Constable Quinn deposed to visiting the Red Lion Hotel with Sergt. Me. Car thy. Witness went along the passage to the second room, where Morgan and Diedrich were. He generally endorsed Sergt. McCarthy’s evidence. For the defence Mr Murdoch stated that hisdefence wmq that Diedrich was a bona fide boarder. On that night Diedrich came to town for an appointment to meet Mr Park at his office on his arrival by the late train. The appointmerft took place at Park and Murdoch’s Office, and then Diedrich went with Morgan to the hotel, where piedrich always stayed when in Hokitika, to obtain particulars from documents in his hag at the hotel. After Morgan had selected the papers required, Diedrich had treated Morgan, which he was

quite entitled to do as a hoarder. William F. Diedrichs deposed he was n farmer residing at Kokatahi. He was co-executor with W. L. Morgan, and P. R. Stewart in his father’s estate. They had had several meetings at night at- Messrs Park and Murdoch's Office. On 27th. March, he came to town about 8.45 p.m. Left'liis bag at the Red lion Hotel and then went to Mr Park’s Office. After about an hour wanting some figures from books in his hag lie went to 1 the Hotel, asking Mr Morgan to accompany him there to select the particular papers, and

while there he asked Morgan to have a drink. Later went iback to Mr Park’s office, staying there till a late hour. Then went back to the hotel. When his wife was with Idm he stayed privately. To Sergt. McCarthy—Had not spoken

,o anyone that* evening about staying

at the hotel, before having,tlm drink, Told the Sergeant in the hotel that evening that- he hud business to discuss. When lie came, into town alone, and stayed tho first night at the Red Lion Hotel.

John J. Mclntosh, licensee of the

Red Lion Hotel deposed that Diedrich was looked on as a regular country customer. He <stayed at- the hotel on the night in question. He gave particulars of the custom of country customers. On*

hearing of the visit of the police he had found Diedrich and had gone to see the Sergeant, on the matter and explain the positiog. Dipdrich li.’id stayed a£ the hotel from four to six times during flip year at night, hut was a igore regujar visitor for meals.

At this stage the hook for entering up hoarders was asked for by the police and was brought to the Court for inspection for verification of the number of times that Diedrichs had stayed at the hotel.

To the Magistrate. —-Miss Hawkins told him she may have done wrong, but she did not think so. She was much upset at the visit of the police. Winifred Hawkins deposed she had been with Mr Mclntosh for about 11 years. Mr Dicdrich’ was a frequent visitor to the hotel for meals. Could not say how often he had stayed the night, but it was several times. Remembered the Saturday night in question. She supplied the drinks. Remembered the police coming in. Told them she bad served the drinks, and that she had thought she had done no wrong.

To the Sergeant—Had not asked the men if they were boarders. Sbe took it for granted that ias Mr Diedrichs liad often stayed there that he was staying that night.

The Court adjourned at 1 o’clock.

* AFTERNOON SITTING. The Court resumed at 2.30 p.m. , His Worship giving judgment stated there were two points outstanding. The first was the unconceivable stupidity of the two men, when asked a plain question, in that they could not or would not give a simple ansiver to a simple question. -The second point was- the custom apparently followed by some .hotels with regard to country .patrons. He warned or advised licensees that in future it would be better not to take it for granted that a country patron is m going to be a boarder. It would be bet- , ter to satisfy themselves in a proper ' manner before supplying liquor. The other aspects were simple. What was the intention of the barmaid when she supplied the liquor. In her evidence she said she was flustered and so gives an excuse for contradicting what the police alleged she said at the time. He found there was a doubt in his mind and accordingly the 1 defendant gets the benefit. The information I would be dismissed.

In reply to the Magistrate, Sergt McCarthy stated in view of his Worship’s decision, and as he had no other evidence to tender, he would ask for leave to withdraw the other three charges.. Leave given and'charges withdrawn. ADJOURNED HEARING.

On the adjourned case of Charles Wasley (Mr Murdoch) v. Frank Graham being called, "Mr Pilkington. who had appeared for defendant at the previous hearings, stated that since last hearing he had not heard from the defendant, and under the circumstances he was unable to go on with the case. Mr Murdoch then applied for judgment for the full amount claimed. His Worship gave judgment for tho full amount claimed, £3O 12s, with costs and disbursements as for a defended action, being £2 14s Od, counsels’ fee £2 12s. Total £35 18s. CHARGES OF THEFT.

Charles Albert Hood was charged with stealing about 20th April, one .'coat the property of James Downey, I pair of boots, the property of T. W. Beare and 1 pair of boots the property of J. S.. Langford. The accused pleaded guilty to the three charges and not guilty to a charge of stealing 1 coat, the property of P. Romais. The latter charge was by leave. The accused elected to be dealt with summarily. Sergt McCarthy stated that the accused was a strapgor to the district and was a horse trainer. The articles were taken from the Dominion Hotel. He had taken them away, and had tied them up in a swag to go by the boat to Bruce*Bny, but lucidly last evening the boat had not got away and the articles had been found that morning. Accused, in reply to the Magistrate said he had been drinking and had no recollection of the theft till next morning- -

His Worship said it w£b a very impudent theft, ;and asked if he had p better excuse than drunkenness to make. In reply to a query accused said 'lie was a single man; His Worship said these thefts could not be permitted. Under the circumstances he woujd give him an opportiu. ity to redeem himself. He would ' convicted and fined £10;' in def; three months hard labour, a month hi ing allowed for payment. ANOTHER CASE. Roy Burrowes (Mr Sellers) was charged with theft of similar articles ns the above, and pleaded not guilty. Sergt McCarthy asked for a remand to next morning, stating the charges arose out of the same set of circumstances. A remand was granted till next morning, with bail on accused’s own recognisance of £oo.