MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ROSS

Hokitika Guardian, 17 June 1920, Page 1

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ROSS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16lh

(Before E. C .Levvey, Esq., S.M.)

LICENSING ACT

Bridget Roberts, licensee of the Com. moreial Hotel, Ross was charged with permitting drunkenness on her licensed premises on Sunday, Gth June. Sergt. McCarthy appeared for the police and Mr Murdoch for defendant. The evidence of Constable Stark, James Muir, M. Connolly, D. Roberts and the liccn. see was taken, after which the Magistrate intimated that in all such cases as the punishment provided by the Licensing Act was so severe he would make it a rule, that the prosecution must prove the facts alleged in the information conclusively. In this case, as,the defendant had.succeeded in raising a doubt in his mind, he would give her tlie benefit of the doubt and dismiss tho information.

E. A. Kirby, licensee of the Hari Hari Hotel,' was charged on four informations with breaches of the Licensing Act. Defendant'pleaded guilty to one information and was fined £3 and costs 7s, the Magistrate stating that he would take into consideration the fact that the licensee had been perfectly candid when spoken to by Constable Kennedy who interviewed him a considerable time after the offences had been committed, all the witnesses being in Wellington. The . case was not to be taken as a precedent in regard to the fine, a s bo would inflict a heavy penalty if any future breach were committed, Mr Murdoch appeared for defendant..

A number of first offenders were fined id suras ranging from 5s to. 40s and costs, on charges of being found on licensed premises after hours. CATTLE NUISANCE CASE. H. A.. Adamson of Hari Hari was charged on the information of John Hewer, , (recently appointed honorary ranger to deal with tire wandering stock nuisance in South Westland) with permitting stock to wander on the public road. Two informations were laid as to different animals and on different dates. Mr Murdoch for the informant stated that as there was no bye-law Sufficient to deal with s uch cases the information had' been laid under the Police Offences Act. The defendant did not appear. The evidence of Jo n Hewer was then taken and proved that the defendant’s stock trespassed on the road s on the dates mentioned. Mr Hewer did not press for a heavy penalty, as he .had heard the defendant was sick, and he desired that this case should be taken as a warning to others; He, howeveiv had heard that the defendant had stated ho could not be com. polled to keep cattle off the road. His Worship in giving judgment said il the defendant cared to repeat the offence he would fine him the. maximum penalty of £2O and give him an opportunity of testing the decision on appeal. As in this case a heavy penalty ws not asked for and he would be fined £1 on the first information, court costs and mileage £1 5s arid counsel’s fee £1 Is. On the s econd information lie would be convicted and ordered to pay court costs £1 5s • ■