MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 22 June 1922, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

j THURSDAY, JUNE 22nd. (Before W. Meldrum Esq., S- M *> LICENSING ACT. The Police charged two local residents with being on licensed premises (Commercial Hotel) during prohibited hours, who did not appear. Convicted and ordered to pay costs .s each. For being on Occidental Hotel after hours on 3rd June, a third offender wa 8 charged. Convicted and fined £2 and 1 costs° 7. Two other offeners similarly charged were convicted one being fined £2 and costs 7s, and the other £1 and costs 7s. ARMS ACT. Noith Harris, charged with being in possession of two unregistered toearms. was convicted and ordered to 1 pay costs 7s. j Mark Wallace, similarly charged for I rw„ firearms, was convicted alt cl orders ctl to pay 13s costs. I CYCLING AT NIGHT.

Frank Chapman, charged with riding a bicycle in Hokitika without a light at 7.15 p.m. was convicted and fined 5s and 13s costs.

M. O’Neill similarly charged was con. vietod smd fined ->s and costs /s.

STAFFORD LICENSING CASK

The Police charged William Blackmon licensee of Caledonian Hotel, Stafford with on 4th. June having exposed liquor for sale and with selling liquor during prohibited hours. He pleaded not guilty: Sotgt. McCarthy pfoseem tod.

Sorgt. King deposed on 4th. June, at 11.20 a.in. ho visited the hotel with Constable Best. Entered by the side entrance and proceeded to the bar. Saw the bar door open and fire men iii the bilr, one ft boarder ill the hotel, each drinking shandies. Angelo Gathbernsszi was behind the bar acting as barmen. Four men who were not boarders admitted they were not and said they had come in for a drink. IVbile questioning the men the licensee came in, and said he had been away at his claim anti did not know this was happening. Then questioned Gainherftzzi as to his authority to supply. He said lie did supply them. He was not a regular barman, but did assist sometimes ill the bar. That lie did not know he lias doing wrong by serving on Sunday.

Constable Best gave corroborative evidence of that of Sergt- King. This was the case for the police. Wiji.'ani Blackmon deposed ho was licensee of the Stafford Hotel. As fill' as lie knew the evidence of Sergt. King wtls Correct: On Sunday morning he had to go to the claim to put in a set of timber to protect a dangerous place, and this took him till ho returned at nearly 12 o’clock. Gamberazzi worked in the claim with witness, hut did not lieip hitn that day, going to Church instead, After he came from church, Gamberazzi went into the kitchen and asked Mrs Blackrtiuii for a drink and she said she was busy nnd asked him to go to (he bar, and get one himself. Witness entile in directly afterwards aitd saw tile police there. That was the first occasion that he knew there was anyone in the bar.

To tiie Magistrate—Gamberazzi was not authorised to serve in the bar. He had served on one or two occasions when witness was handling a motor ear and had dirty hands. There was no money in tile till or elsewhere f the drinks that day. Witness worked in his claim from noon till about 10 o'clock at night. Gamberazzi worked in the claim on behalf of another partner. and boards in the hotel. There are seve al boarders. To Sergt. McCarthy—No money was paid for the drinks. The jiolico had visited the hotel on several occasions. Or. this occasion the men and police w re all in the bar when witness entered the hotel.

His Worship said the licensee had been veiv frank as to what took place. There was no doubt a sale was taking place when tho police came in, and lie was satisfied that the licensee was liable. He did not have that strict control that he should have. A conviction would he recorded with a fine of £1 and costs 7s on the charge of exposing. Angelo Gamberazzi charged with supplying in connection with the above was eo—v'cled and lined £1 with costs 7s. Four men connected with the above, charged with being on licensed premises during prohibited hours, did not appear and were convicted and ordered to pay costs 7s each.