MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 September 1923, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAY, HE I’TEA! I! i'll? 13th. (Refute Win Meldrum, Esq., S.AI.) The I’olicc charged a resident with being on Incic-cd premises ( I hree Alii" IloUh unde prohibited. < 'oir. c tcl and discharged. The Police charged A!. G. .Marshall (Air .Murdoch) licensee of the Three Mile Hotel with knowingly permitting a prohibited person to I reqilcut the hotel. Evidence was given by Ail's Marshall that she did nut know that l Ik* man was pro hihited. She knew lie had been prohibited up till .lanuary hist, hi!L not this year, lie had been ""Thing at tlie mill while slaying at the hotel. All's Grace Cunningham gave evidence as to not having seen ii.e order for tins scar, lier mother was very can4’ill and methodical in connection with orders. 11 is Worship said he must accept the evidence that the order had not been received os' delcnilnnt.' It was clearly proved she did not “knowingly" permit the Irequentiug oi the hotel. ’I lie ease* would he dismissed. DEBT CASES. Commissioner o! Crown Lands (Air Baric) v. Con. Warren, claim 23 Ds Sit. Judgment for plaint ill' with costs 25s Oil. ‘ Same v. Win. O'Brien, claim £(> 12s Judgment for phiintifi. with costs 5/s (id. Same v. Frank Balk, claim Lll. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs £2 Us." Same v. G. 11. ami R. < L Honey, claim £2U (is fid. Judgment for pkiiutiif with costs .25 Ids.

Same v. -lames Hughes, claim Cl Ds fkl. Judgment for plain till’ with costs

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING. J. Rea (.Mr Pilkington) v. C. Hannan (Mr dowel, an application 'defendant for a rehearing of a civil ease heard at Boss, at which defendant mid failed to- give notice to defend, and that judgment had been given agamsl him. After lounsel laid given their idihesscs, tlie Court adjourned. AFTERNOON SITTING. The Court resumed at 2.10 p.m. Jfis Worship Stated at the original healing at Ross, the defendant appeared lint licit having filed a notice to defend, he (11 is Worship) without going into the evidence gave judgment lor the plaintiff. The defendant now applied for a re-hearing stating he did not notice the instructions as to the need to file a defence. He went down from' Greymonlli to Ross to defend the ease. If the evidence given by the defendant was true then an injustice appeared likely to he done by the judgment given. l!e would thorelore grant the application for a re-hearing, subject to the defendant paying tlie vests of the original hearing £3 19s and £1 Is to counsel lor this hearing. Ihu hearing was set down to he heard at Ross on 13th. October.