MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 9 July 1925, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAY, JULY 9th. (Before W. Meldnim. Esq., S.M.) LICE.XSXG ACT. A local resident aim did mu appear was lined 22 and costs . s lor being unlawfully on licensed premises (Masonic Hotel). The police charged a resident ol Knkatnhi <for whom .Mr .Murdoch appeared) with being unlawfully mi licensed premises alter hours t Knkatnhi Hotel). Defendant pleaded not guilty, stating he told the constable that Ik* had come on the premises to see a. boarder on business. That he had declined to tell tin' constable the business, holding the constable bad no light to ask what bis business was. Mr Murdoch asked tor a ruling by the Court on tin* poiul raised. Ilis \\ orsliip said lie considered that-the person found on licensed premises was not called on to disclose his actual business. If the constable is not satisfied with the explanation that lie receives then it. is his duty to bring the person before the Court to satisfy the Court with his explanation. II the person does not disclose enough then he is forced to come to the Court to explain, whereas il he disclosed enough to satisfy the Constable then he would not, Ik? brought before the Court. It was quite right in the present instance that the Constable had brought him to the Court to satisly the .Magistrate. The case would be dismissed. An offender charged with being on licensed premises (Commercial Hotel) alter hours did not appear. Convicted and order to nay costs is. Another resident (for whom .Mr .Murdoch appeared) pleaded not guilty, to a similar charge (Occidental Hotel i, claiming he was there on business. Hi- Worship said he was not satisfied with the explanation given. Fined 2()s and costs 7s. Another resident similarly charged ('Occidental Hotel') was convicted and lined 2l)s and costs is. 'PROHIBITION ORDER. An application for a prohibition order was granted, on the wile's application, the defendant not appearing. A IAI XT EX AXCKOR DE R. A charge of failure to pay a maintenance order was partly hoard and adjourned till Saturday next at 0.-IJ 51.H1. BOROUGH BYE-LAWS. Borough Inspector (Mr Park) v. C. Pfahlert, a charge of allowing 2 horses to wander. Fined os and costs 17s 6d. Same v. A. Richards, a charge of cycling on a footpath. Fined os and costs 17s 6d. Same v. F. Bangrove. a similar charge. Fined os and costs Ls Gd. Same v. T. Stuart, allowing a pony to wander, billed os and costs lis 6d. DEBT GASES.

Jessie Main (Mr Sellers for Mr Wells) v. A. Reynish. claim for £lO. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £2

William Thomas Chinn (Air Murdoch) v. John Richard Wallace, claim for £lO Los. Mr Pilkington appeared for defendant, but stated beyond instructions to defend, he bad not received anything further, the defendant being in Christchurch. Plaintiff gave evidence that be claimed from defendant for droving toes for sheep and lambs, from South Westland to Ross. Wallace told him to send the account to Kayo and Carter, but they had declined liability. Wallace bad definitely stated he would miv witness for the work. Judgment for plaintiff for £4O los, with costs £l4 6s. An order for immedi.net execution was made.

Tn a judgment summons case no order was made, after hearing the evidence of defendant.