Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA

THURSDAY, JULY 31st, 1921

(Before 14. W. Bundle Esq., S.M.)

IJCENSING ACT

The Police elin,rge<l two offenders who did not appear, with being on. licensed premises (Commercial Hotel) jitter hours. Fined oneli 40/- and costs;

wandering cattle. Borough Inspector, C. Gibbons (Mr Park) charged the following with allowing cattle to wander and fines were iinllicted as follows—J. Cameron, 3 cows, 10/- and costs 7/-; W. H Breeze 1 horse. 10/- and 7/-; M. Fcote. 1 horse 10/- and costs 7/-; T. Stopforth. 1 horse, 2 cows and 2 horses v 3 charges) Fined 10/- and costs 7/- each on two charges, on third convicted and discharged; Jas. Agncw, 1 horse 10/- and costs 7/-; T/ Coyle, 2 cows, fined 10 - and costs 7/-.

County Inspector, Walter Thomson (Mr Park) v. G. Pfahlcrt, ■» charge of allowing 1 cow to wandeii on Knnieri road, fined 5/-, solicitors fee 10/0, costs 7/-; G. Hoad, 2 cows Knnieri road, fined 5/- and costs 17/0; P. Ryan 1 calf, Riinu road, fined counsel’s fee 10/0 and costs 7/-; IV. Gumming 1 cow Knnieri road, fined 5/- counsel’s fee 10/0 and costs 7/-. FOOD AND DRUGS ACT.

F. Varney Inspector of Health (Mr Park) v. J. M. Mclntyre (Mr Joyce)'

charge under Sale of Food and Drug> Act, that milk supplied contained less than 8)% of milk fat (3.1). A plea of not guilty was entered. F. Varney deposed lie was Inspector under Food and Drugs Act. On 15th. .Tune he railed at Mclntyre's place and bought a quart of milk. It was divided into three parts, one being sent to the Government Analysist at Christchurch. To Air Joyce—The milk was very slightly warm. This was the second sample taken, the first samnle proving correct. Defendant had no difficulty in giving the lit ilk. Made no suggestions whatever. The milk wi agitated before the sample was taken. Constable Flewellyn corroborated. There were two other basins of milk. Had a discussion on the ( .ows. Mr Joyce called evidence.

John M. Mclntyre deposed h' had two cows and his wife was Die registered proprietor of the dairy. Had had the milk tested, one at Greymouth and one at Wellington. Was satisfied that the milk was good. There were three pans when the Inspector called. Had had no complaints against his milk. Could not account for the test. Nothing was done to the milk after it ~ame from the cow. John Jarman deposed that the supply of milk by defendant was very good indeed.

To Air Park He was not an analyst

Henry S. Nightingale deposed be was proprietor of the Dominion Hotel. He fousd the defendants milk was very good indeed and compared very favorably with any other that he obtained.

Amos Dowell deposed he had been taking milk from defendant. It was always good, getting more cream from

it than from otjher milk he obtained.

y Mr Joyce said his client was absolu- ! tely innocent and he would like a fur I ther analysis of the milk. I j His Worship said he would adjourn ! the matter for four weeks to enable an . analysis to be made. . ' ADJOURNED. ' I A. Cederman (Mr Wells) v. G. ! Lyes (Mr Murdoch) claim for £57 19s. .| Mr Murdoch ros e the point that the 1 .statement of claian was incomplete. His Worship agreed this was so and adjoursed the case for a month, plaintiff meantime to supply derailed particulars.

A DEFENDED CHARGE

Police v. J. J. Mclntosh (Mr .Joyce) licensee of Red Lion Hotel, a charge of selling liquor after • hours. Winnie Hawkins was also charged with having unlawfully supplied same. A plea of not guilty was entered in both cases which were taken together.

Sergt. King outlined the case and led evidence as follows: Constable Quinn deposed on 21st. June at 9 p.m. be visited the Red Lion Hotel be found five men, two local residents and three residents of Rimu. Miss Hawkins, the barmaid was coming, out of the room with a ti>ny. Three had liquor in their hands, one of the others had a soft drink and one other had nothing. Questioned the men, Hagar said he vns not a boarder, but claimed lie was a traveller and that it was beer be bad. He bad ordered it’aml paid for it. O’Connor said be lived at Rimu, and considered lm could come in there. He had boor and that Xanoekivell shouted. Wool house had no excuse to make stating Nancekivell had shouted. Witness then interviewed Miss Hawkins. She hesitated ns to replying to his questions and then said she supposed that was the end of it. 'lhen went into the room again and Miss Hawkins suggested to three of the men that they were staying and they agreed. Bef-ope- that Hagar and Nancekivell had stated he was not staying there for the night. To Mr Joyce—He understood Nartcckivell and Brown had a . garage on the premises. It was stated that Nancekivell had shouted.

Tin’s was the ca.se for the police

Mr Joyce led evidence: John. J. Mclntosh deposed he was licensee of ‘the Red Lion Hotel. When Nancekivell returned from th 0 war he arranged for the use of bedroom and motor garage. Eater Brown joired in the garage business. Both were constantly hoarding at the holed. To the Sergt.—He considered Nancekivell a permanent boarder. Makes no charge for the use of room or garage.

His Worship asked that the book showing the charge for meals should he produced. James Brown deposed he was in partnership with Nancekivell and had a bedroom and garage at the Red Lion Hotel.

To Sergt. King—He was a registered taxi driver and a boarder at the hotel. Sometimes he used the bedroom and sometimes Nancekivell.

John B. Nancekivell deposed he was a nWor-oar proprietor and resided at Woodstock. Brown is his partner. Had free use of garage and bedroom. On 21st June was in the hotel. Had a drink, shouted for four or five. Always when he came to Hokitika he. staved at the hotel.

, To Sergt King.—His people live at AVoodstock. On an average he stayed 3 nights a week at. the Red I,ion hotel, lie did not sleep at the hotel that night. O’Connor went out with him that night. No questions were put to him before tile police came in, as to whether be was a. boarder or not. Miss Hawkins brought in the liquor. To Air Joyce.- He had seen Constable Quinn in the hotel on a previous occasion. hut lie had not taken any notice of witness on that occasion. The Court adjourned at 1 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING. His Worship resumed his seat at 2.10 p.m. Winifred Hawkins, deposed she was employed at the Red Lion Hotel on 21st. June when Constable Quinn came in she had served the drinks. Naneckivell paid for them. The garage and bedroom referred to was used by .Nancekivell and 'Brown. Naneokivell was in the habit of staying in the hotel very often. She served the drinks to Nancekivell.

To Scirgt. King—She supplied the drink. Did not ask Nancekivell before supplying the drinks if he were a boarder, because bo had lieen running the motor-business at the hotel. ..\lso thought that when Nancekivell was in the hotel that he was staying there. She did not give everybody a drink that asked for it. Witness was cross-examined at some length on (la occurrences of the evening.

His Worship said it was admitted that the barmaid served drinks to Nancekivell. The defence hinges on the contention that Nancekivell was a lodger at that time. Nancekivell did not stay there that night or the two previous nights. He had to decide if the facts show that Nancekivell was a permanent hoarder. He was quite satisfied on the date in question he was not a permanent boarder. The barmaid did not ask him when ho came in if he were going to stay the night. The barmaid was not justified in serving the drinks. The licensee must therefore take the blame for his servant. A conviction would he recorded. J. J. Afclntosh would he convicted and fined £5 and costs 7s and W. Hawkins would he convicted and fined C2 and costs 7s.

Five charges arising out of the above, I of being on licensed premises (Red. j Lion Hotel) at the same period were j dealt with. Three were convicted and j fined £2 and costs 7s each and in two i other charges the question of liability ; was held over till his Worship had time j to consider a point raised by Mr Joyce as to their being bona fide travellers under the Act. having travelled over 3 miles. (Left sitting.)

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19210721.2.26

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 21 July 1921, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,450

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA Hokitika Guardian, 21 July 1921, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, HOKITIKA Hokitika Guardian, 21 July 1921, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert