MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 May 1924, Page 1

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THURSDAY. .MAV loth.. 192-1. (Before W. Meldruni Esq., S.M.) • I.rCENSING ACT. Two men were charged with being unlawfully on licensed premises (All Nations Hotel, Ilium) after hours on 29th. April. After hearing Const. Drummond and one defendant, the ease ou his behalf was adjourned to next sitting to enable him to provide further evidence. The other man who did not appear wa.s convicted and ordered to pay costs 7s. Charged with being on the Royal Mail Hotel, Woodstock, after hours, a resident. for whom Mr Murdoch appeared, pleaded not guilty. After hearing evidence of defendant and the licensee, the facts of being on the premises being on tlie pronisies being admitted, with the excuse that he hud gone to see the licensee (a carter! In obtain the services of a dray, liis Worship said he could not accept, the plea, as a reason why he should have gone into the bar to have a drink at the invitation of ii lodger. A conviction was entered. the defendant In pay costs 7s. Another defendant, similarly charged did not appear and was lined 20s and (..osts 7s.

The police charged James Wells (Mr Murdoch) with supplying liquor after hours and M. Keenan (Mr Murdoch) licensee of Royal Mail Hotel. Woodstock. with exposing liquor for sale. \\VI s pleaded guilty and Keenan not guiltv. The facts were admitted. Hit Worship said had Well- been an emplovec of Keenan, the latter would have been ’eouvicteod, as ho was not, the ease against Keenan would lie dismissed. Wells was fined 20s and costs

ARMS AUf. Tim police charged T. .Scott. (Mr Kleoekl with failure to icgisler a rifle. Fined .Ts and costs 7s DEBT GASES.

\Y. Ziegler (Mr Kleoekl v. Laughton Bros, claim £3l 13s 2d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £! 11s bd. \Y. Jeffries and Co. (Mr Pilkiugtonl v. W. O’Brien, claim CIO I Is -Id. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £2 11s. F. Schroder (Mr Wells) v. J. Ail

(Mr Park). Adjourned Dorn lust sitting. Mr Park intimated that the assignment note hud not been stamped! His Worship said the claim was for CM2 -Is Bd. In the course of a lengthy judgmc-nt he stated that tinimplied promise to pay out ol moneys to lie derived from the sale ul land tailed the moment those particular moneys were not available, and that the statute barred portion of the claim was nut renewed. Judgment would be given for the amount claimed that was not statute barred. £1 ISs fid. «"»l I ill, ill tiff would be non-suited on the balance of the account, which was statute barred.. No costs were allowed.

A DISPUTED ACCOUNT. A. 11. R. lb Cook t Air Murdoch) v. T. Scott (Mr Elcock) claim for .CIO. Arthur 11. \l' lb Cook deposed lie was ranger and caretaker at Lake Kauieri. Had service at Gallipoli and other places from 191!. Defendant came to his home alter Christmas and asked witness if he could pul him up. Told him to come along. Witness provided him with bedding and blankets, mid the best of food. Had never paid for it. After 14 days defendant asked what he owed. Witness told him to leave that till he came hack from Christchurch. He came hack after a week and stayed again for another 17 days, till he got a job at Ward mill. Defendant then asked him what lie owed him. Witness said £Hb is that too much, and defendant said no and lie would fix him tip next pay day. Scleral pays went by without payment. Defendant got in when witness left the house locked, and took awav his clothes.

Cross examined—Witness did net invite defendant to stay with him. slating he would he a great convenience to witness. Defendant did not do nil the cooking. He did a certain amount of it. When defendant packed tip bis clothes, witness told him he had better leave tbvin as they would be safer there.

For the 'defence, the defendant. Thornton Scott gave evidence that ho received an invitation hv Conk to go down to the house and make himself useful. Witness had intended to stay at the hotel. Plaintiff said he was very Inisv. Nothing was said about payment. lie went hack for two weekends to cook for his friends. W it ness prepared nearly all the meals, which were always ready at the regular hours. Witness did all the washing up, and prepared the afternoon tea for visitors, while Cook would be out with tI,o launch. Considered he was Cook’s guest, and did what lie could to help him. The first question of payment was made by witness at the railway station and Cook said to wait till witness came hack from Christchurch. The next request for payment was made when witness ielt to go to the mill. He asked how much he owed him and Cooksaid £lO. Witness said it was rather much. Cook said that was his price and then rushed away to catch a ear. Tlie following Saturday he packed up his gear, hut Cook refused to lot him remove it. Later he went and found the key hidden in a different nlace to where it usually was. and opened the door and took away his clothes. Told Cook he thought £o was quite sufficient. Could live equally as well at the mill at I ts or,Jos a week. To Mr Murdoch —He could justify his action in taking his -clothes without telling Cook, because he wanted his clothes. His Worship said there did not appear to be any definite arrangements made. Cook-did hot appear .to have any fixed- price, for boarders-, while, the defendant did not appear to.bo a boarder only. There was some difficulty in com-

ing to a decision. One had charged £lO while the other offered £5. He would follow nn old custom and split the difference. .Judgment would he given for £7 TOs and costs of Court £1 and counsel’s fee £1 6s. JUVENLE COURT. At a sitting of the Juvenile Court a lad pleaded guilty to theft of £l, of which restitution had been made. The offender was severely admonished 'and discharged.