MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 11 February 1926, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11th

(Before W. Meldrum, Esq., S.M.)

BREACHES OF LICENSING ACT. A number of persons were charged with being on licensed premises after hours. Two persons were fined £1 each and costs, another os and costs; five others no fine, to pay costs; two eases dismissed. FAILURE TO ATTEND DRILL. Eric O. Goodfellow, fined £1 and costs. Fred. J. Gnrdyne, fined 5s and costs. John E. Shaw, fined £1 and costs. Robert Spoor, fitted £1 and costs. Stanley W. Dale, fitted £l and costs. W. F. Bnrrowmait, fined 5s and costs. W. Duncan, fined 10s and costs. Thomas Staines, doctor’s certificate put in'; no fine, costs imposed. Titos. Curtain, fitted 10s and costs OBSCENE LANGUAGE.

Police v. E. D. Barrett (Mr Murdoch) charged with using obscene language, pleaded not guilty and elected to he tried by the Magistrate. ■William Holley stated that on 20th

January in Hampden Street saw defendant who was a horse trainer. A horse had broken down the fence of Holley’s section. AV'lien spoken to defendant used obseence language and other bad language. Defendant was excited. One word addressed to him was used several times.

To Air Murdoch—l swear that the words in first part of the information wore used ; cannot swear to the second part of the information. Did not ask defendant to go on to the beach and have it out. Asked him to inspect the damaged fence. Gave no provocation for the language. To the Benoit—The defendant became most excited all at once. There was no one near, hut some people passed. A man was working nearby. I saw him afterwards. William AViehlitz. labourer, was working near by when Holley and Barrett had an altercation. Hoard some of the words used by Barrett mentioned in the information. Was about half a chain away. Barrett was speaking loudly. Holley told Barrett to come to the hack yard if he wanted to fight. To Mr Artirdooh—Holley asked Barrett to Jix the fence llion ILyroft used the language. Barret was the first to talk of fighting. To the Bench—Holley stated lie would have the horse moved front the paddock, and then Barrett spoke of lighting, lie moved away and then

Holley invited the defendant to the hack yard. Mr Murdoch said the ease was a storm in a tea-cup. The words specified in the information were not supported by the evidence, except ill regard to one word. Defendant was it quiet retiring titan who kept very much to himself. Edward Barrett, horse owner, owned the horse. Barleycorn, which had been in Cameron’s paddock, adjoining Air

Holley's section. Alet Holley in Hampden B't., who said he would turn the horses out if they were not taken aWiiv. T said he would not, do that. Holley then threatened in strong language, it ml I replied. The incident, took only a minute or two. I walked away. Both sides used insulting words. Dili not use the words comlained of. Do not use them. Have never been in court before. The witness AViehlitz was mistaken in stating a certain word was used. Holley had asked me fo go to the beach and fight. AYalked away and left Holley. AYas surprised when he found the police had taken the matter up. Had no had feeling and was sorry for any language used.

To the police: I deny using the language complained of. f do not interfere with anyone. I heard Holley using insulting language and I replied, but I did not use an obscene word. The Magistrate stated the seriousness of the case depended on who bad heard the language. The informant, did not take the language very seriously. The words were overboard by AA’ioblitz, and in the circumstances a fine of £1 and costs would be made. BOROUGH BY-LAW. Borough Inspector (Mr Park) v. \Y. Berry jr.. wandering horse, fined os and costs. Same v. \A'. AYliite, wandering horse, fined 5s and costs. Same v. F. Thompson, wandering horse, fined os and costs. Same v .Arnold Thompson, riding a bicycle on footpath., fined os and costs. Same v. Robert Redder, wandering horse, fined os and costs. Same v. F. Gardyne, failing to observe "the rule of the road when riding a motor cycle, fined os and costs. Same v. John R. Simpson (Mr Pilkington) failure to observe the rule of the road when driving a motor car past the Clock Tower. Air Park said the Borough Council wished the rule ol the road enforced at such a dangerous corner. The Inspector gave evidence and Air Pilkington traversed the evidence, holding that there was no case to answer. The Magistrate uphold the point and the information was dismissed with costs. Same v. Allan Dale, riding a bicycle without a light, fined 5s and costs. Police v. Tims. Staines jr. allowing stock to trespass on railway line. Sergt. King said that the father had been charged previously and was found not to be in charge of the cattle. The son was now charged. Evidence was led in respect to cattle straying on the line The cattle were impounded—three head altogether. The cattle were released from the pound by I bos. Staines jr. The defendant stated the cattle belonged to Air Keenan. Originally they got away and did not know the'whereabouts till found in too pound. The mob was in the (barge ol defendant when the. cattle were lost, yinod os aiul costs.