MAGISRATE'S COURT HOKITIKA

Hokitika Guardian, 16 December 1921, Page 1

MAGISRATE'S COURT HOKITIKA

THURSDAY, DECEMER 15th. AFTERNOON SITTING. (Before AVm. Meldruhi Esq., S.M.) The Court resumed tit 2.10 p.m. FALSE PRETENCES. Percy Crabb had pleaded guilty in the morning and His Worship gave His decision in this ease. On the first charge of obtaining 22, accused was sentenced to throe months with haul labor and on the second charge of obtaining £(> 18s 5d to six months imprisonment with hard labor, the sentence's to he cumulative. An order was made for restitution of such goods ns were recoverable. Accused was warned that in view of his previous had record if he came tip before the Court again lie would he treated ns a habitual criminal. .

PROTECTION OF NATIVE BIRDS. William Bannister Air Murdoch) was charged with robbing the nests ol birds indigenous lo New Zealand, to wit terns, and pleaded not guilty. Sergl King for the pioseiTUion, stated 1 lie person eh.aiged aits loiind on 27i1l Noe. in possession ol two biscuit tins lull of egg.-, taken from the nests of black capped tern. These birds wen' nesting cm an island in ilie Hokitika river between th- railway bridge and the mouth ol tne river. These bird' were absolutely protected under the regulations.

Constable Quinn dc|siscd he found t.he defendant in possession ol a quantity of eggs, and lie admitted taking them. The eggs were those ot the black capped tern, lie bad been there prior to the defendant taking the eggs, and saw the tern sitting 1111 the eggs.

They were sea birds that came ashore to nest.

To Mr Murdoch—The charge was for robbing the nest. This was the case for the police.

Mr Murdoch said he v.as going to claim that there eoiild tie no robbing of a nest, because the bird mentioned ma le no nest.

His Worship said lie could not rule with counsel.

William Bannister demised lie was a native, horn ip Bruce Bay Knew Ihe lei 11. As a unlive, lie claimed the 1 i .],I to lake the eggs ol ’.ln' icrti tor food purposes. Had been told that often in his childhood. Have taken thousands in his time. Was taking away the eggs to eat. The eggs that he did not take have since gone, owing to floods. The tern made no best, just laid them on the ground anywhere. To Sergt King. The eggs hatch in three days. The eggs were laid on the sand. He bail never seen their eggs laid nil grass, or trees.

To the Magistrate—He had never sreii the voting on the sands. In roll! weather the birds sat on the eggs, in siiuiiv weather they sat alongside the

Mrs George deposed she lived at Aralutra, that terns did not build any nest, they laid 011 the sand. Khe claimed the right to take these eggs and u ill always claim to do so. Mr-Murdoch claimed that. 11 could not he offence to take eggs Horn the nesi of a bird that did not make a

nest. His Worship said lie could not Billow Mr Murdoch’s argument. He ruled that in the including of the word tern, in the list of birds absolutely protected, the place where the eggs are laid must be taken as the nest of the bird, and tlu> prohibition being against the robbing of the nest, that an offence has been committed. He did not look on i_l,j s fitst* as a st'iioiis otu*. Poioiulaut hud followed the custom of his fathers, but he dill not consider it was an action that lie would cousidei was morally wrong, lie would be convicted ami ordered lo pay costs 7s. WEIGHING COAL. Inspector of Weights and Measures iW. Carter) v. End Lovett (Mr Murdoch) a charge of selling coal without it being weighed. Defendant pleaded not guilty. This case arose out ol one heard at a recent sitting. The question, was if defendant, acting fur Ins employer. wtis liable to punishment. Mr Murdoch claimed that defendant did not sell t.he coal, as lie only took 1 filer and delivered the roal fur bis employer. Mis Worship 1.ci.l with the delon.e ihat the defendant did not sell tin' coal, ;i no llic infui niatiou was dismissed. CLAIM EUR POSSESSION. A. W. Dowell (Mr Weils) v. 4. L. Fowler IMr Murdoch) a claim fur possession of ihe Central Hotel. Robert Wells deposed be was a solieitoi and produced a copy of l be notice to quit. Mr Murdoch held that the notice to quit was an original document and that a copy could not he presented when notice to produce such notice bail not been served on the delcmlant. His Worship held that this was the vital point of the action, and he must mb' with Mi Murdoch, that the failure lo demand production ol the original document was vital.

Mr Wells asked for live minutes to find a case on procedure 111 support <4 his claim that lie hail the right-

This was granted, and on resuming Mr Wells submitted a ease in which a was hold there was no necessity to submit tho actual notice to quit. _ His Worship accepted the authority submitted, and agreed to hear the evidence. Mi Wells continued his evidence, lie served on Mr Fowler the notice to quit (a copy of same produced). William F. Warren deposed he was formerly the owner of the Central Hotel. lie sold the land and hotel to A. YV. Dowell on Get. Ist which was transferred on Oct. 20th. Mr Fowler had | K 'cn in possession about three years. After witness had sold to Dowell, Fowler wanted to purchase the place. On 4th or sth Oct., Mrs Fowler remarked that she would be ready to go nut on utli Nov., the day he mentioned in his notice to quit.

To Mr Murdoch—Knew the mortgagors had made the arrangement for Fowler to go into the hotel. They had full authority as regards a tenant, lie had never revoked the general authority given Alaiull and Co. in reference to the tenancy. The mortgagors had authority to pay out expenses and receive the rental.

Amos W. Dowell deposed lie was the purchaser of the Central Hotel, and wished 10 obtain possession of same. If Mr Fowler could not got a bouse to remove to lie could have witness’ house at 12s (id per week. Was prepared m pay off the whole mortgage. M ; s Fowler had said she would he ready Lo go out on sth Nov. Mr Murdoch moved lor a non-suit under Section .‘IS ol the Land Transfer Act, and that by the documents in court, Fowler’s tenancy lias been paid for and exists up to March :11st, 1922. Joseph L. Fowler deposed he was the licensee of the Central Hotel. He had paid the licensee lee to June next. Arranged for the tenancy with Mandl and Co. On 11th Oct. paid 297 10s, being rent to .‘list March next at 50s per week. To Mr Wells—He did not pay the livens:’ lee, that was paid hv Mandl and Co. lie never made an agreement to gel out of the hotel on sth Nov. Raid the rent l.y cheque on Bank of New South With'-, til Mr Farrar.

To the Magistrate. --W.u ren in Ins notiee to quit, stated he had sold, and wanted witness to -ire possession on Ath Nov. Had never said lie would give up possession mi oth Nov. Raid tiie rent at any lime, when he lmd the money. He paid the rent in advance in October in older to protect himself in his tenancy to Hi si March. This was done after getting noiiee to quitW. Warren recalled, gave evidence of the making of an offer for another sabprior to selling to Dowell. Victoria Fowler deposed she was the .vile of the licensee of Central Hotel. She had never stated on sth Octolier ol - any other dale that she would be ready to go out on sth Nov. To Mr Wells—Mr Warren told her lie had sold to Dowell. She was present when Warren was with Dowell looking over tiie house. To the Magistrate—She knew that the house had been sold More Dowell and Warren went Hiemgli the Louse. Dowell told be, lie wanted to go "> °" sth Nov. To Mr Wells—Klic said that hei daughters would be pleased to go out of the hotel.

This concluded the evidence. His Worship in giving judgment, reviewed the evidence at length. Taking into consideration that Howell had gone through the hotel with Warren on All, Oct. to sec the furniture nmUhal Fowler had paid on 11th Get. 29/ Wt„ Farrar for rent, he had m> doubt that tiie payment was so arranged so that dele,ula.lt would be able ... show a coiitinuaney of tenancy. He held however. that Farrar had no power to do s,, and there was no proof that rent had been oaid in advance More, ami he held that plaintiff was not bound by such payment. He was satisfied that the lease was terminated by om month’s notice and that that ended on 30th Nov. was a legal » and sufficient. As to the Laud Iransfer Act the question ol registration 0 title was not necessary to give possession. lie held Hull Dowell was entitled to possession and the order granted, possession to be g'ven wtthn, a W eek and 22(1 »f mesne profits "as allowed. Court costs Ms. w, J w * h |.-,s and counsels fee 22 12s were allowed plaintiff. . Mr Murdoch gave notice ol appeal „„ law- and fad. The sum of 801 l was fixed as security, seven days being given to tile same.

EVEN INC SITTING. The Court resumed at 1 .59 l’-” 1 - MAORIS DISAGREE. Laurie George (Mr Wells) v. George Tainui (Mr Murdoch) charges ot using insulting language, and Hirther "it 1 assault. A pit’ll of a»f- g'"".v "'as d.tdod. The two charges were taken 15* * 'i'-i»«V'* --ftlX \rdiurn. He knew the delunhimt iGcoroe Tainui. On RUli November he was fishing for whitebait at A 1 aim a. About 3.W) p.m. coming home, la iu ~.,fled out. and followed witness who wS towards His home. Tamm hen uso ,l Hu- words complained 01. Witness’s nephew and his son were present. Witness lid nut interfere with Georg . On the same day ab0ut.7.30 p.m witness and his wife wen- in her house when George came to the tr.uit o t house and called out again the previously complained of. told witness to go out and g-ve' mu a hidino Gi-ore-o continued to rail out SS >, Sf, ™,i U ultimately they had ,l n ‘ 1 , George fell into a water hole. Geoi-y ™rv drunk. A week later George name to' the house and came msidi. Witness ordered him out, hut Geoigi would not go, and used the same words again. He was continually ff tl'N drunk and then caused disturbances. To Air Murdoch.—Witness acknowIcdocd having previously boon convicted for” using' alivisive language on several occasions. IT<> would not. inter ore with Conroe if lie did not ,-ome to Ins house and "insult him. He knew George would annoy and insult lmn again. To the Magistrate.—When George was sober he was no trouble to anyone. When George fell into tiie water hole tin was loaded with four bottles of beer. At this stage the Court adjourned for five minutes at the request of plaintiff’s with a view to shortening proceedings. 0,1 resuming. Mr Wells stated that m view of tho admissions of the plaintiff ho had no option but to ask leave to withdraw both charges. Leave to withdraw was granted with costs £2 2s allowed, counsel and witmasses 255. ANOTHER DISPUTE. Laurie George (Mr Welts) v. Tr, T 1hiwai (Mrs Lousich). (Mr Park) an application for sureties of th e P««Laurie George deposed on lltli Nm . Air and jiTrs Louisch enme into the hack yard of witness and called out words* complained of and said trie paddock Belonged to her. AVttness told them to get out of his paddock. one went away and then came back and repeated tho words. He was rfraid of

her repeating the language and causing a disturbance. There had been trouble

for the past two years. To Mr Park.—Tie did not. say if they came in his gate he would shoot them. How could ho shoot anyone when fee had not a gun. He had never shot a trout in is life. There had never been ! any trouble with them and a gate He did not have much liquor now. He was not as fond of it as he used to be. Alls .Lousich had been calling him names for the past two years. That was as far hack as lie could go. Alary George, wife of Latin George deposed on lltli Nov. she heard Mrs i ousieh call out the abusive words cornpal ined of. There was a lot of trouble between Airs Lousioli and Laurie George about the land. Air Park said there was nothing for the defence to answer. There was trouble over a gate that was pulled down and that was the only cause of the action. , His Worship said there was no need, to call evidence for the defence. There was a hot of ill-feeling among members of the nali over their land, but he did not feel justified in selecting a woman to be bound over to keep the peace. He thought the complainant had brought the trouble on his own head. He was not of opinion the conduct was liable to he repeated. The information would lx> dismissed. Counsel for defendant allowed £1 Is.