MAGISTRATE’S COURT HOKITIKA

Hokitika Guardian, 14 February 1922, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT HOKITIKA

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14tli

(Before Wm. Meldrum Esq., S.M.) The Court sat at 11 a.m. J UVENILE COURT.

The Police charged three small hoys with throwing stones in Gibson’s Quay on 7th. Feb. As a result of the stone throwing another little boy had had his eye badly damaged. The Magistrate severely admonished each of the lads for their serious misconduct and finally discharged them. THE LICENSING ACT. The Police charged three first offenders with being found on licensed premises alter hours. They did not appear and were each convicted and ordered to pay costs. Police v. A Iloss resident (Mr Sellers) charge of drunkenness while in charge of a horse at llinni on 7th. inst. and n further charge of breach of prohibition. order. Mr Sellers on behalf of accused pleaded guilty. It \va.s not the first offence but lie explained defendant’s circumstances to Ilis Worship and asked in view of the facts for a lenient penalty. Defendant was convicted and fined £1 and costs 7s on the first charge and .Go and costs 7s on the second charge. The Police charged John Findlay with disturbing a resident by beating a tin can in the vicinity of his residence. Mr Wells appeared for defendant and pleaded “not guilty.” The facts of the case as shown hv the evidence were that on the night of 7th. inst. defendant and others (against whom similar prosecutions are pending went to Mr G. H. Woods residence in Gibson’s Quay to “Tin Kettle” him on the occasion of a supposed happy event in the family. On arrival at Mr Woods residence the party did not meet with the usual reception they were evidently mistaken, in that, the supposed marriage had not taken place. The Police were called on the scene and prosecutions followed. Mr Wells called the defendant who stated that the visit on the night in question was made without the slightest malice. He had previously taken part in other similar functions and that no exception had ever been taken. His Worship ordered defendant to pay Court costs 7s, stating that an offence had been committed. “Tin Nettling was sometimes taken in good part, but some times it was not. CIVIL CASES. The majority of tlio cases called were either settled or adjourned. Wm. Stewart (Mr Sellers) v. Win. Egan. Claim £2O Bs. Judgment for

amount claimed less CIO recently paid. Costs £1 10s. Solicitors foes £1 11s. |,. Goods (Mr Murdoch) v. Y. .T. Robinson. Claim £8 15s fid. Judgment for amount claimed £8 15s fid; Court oostvs £1 ss. Solicitor 15s fid. F. I’. Cameron v. A. O’TTalloran (Mr Wells). Claim for £45 fo r wages duo on tbo removal of a bouse from Rimu and its re-erection in Hokitika. (Proceeding).