MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 25 February 1926, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24th

(Before W. .Meldrum, Esq., S.M.) DEFENCE ACT. 1 Police charged Horace Williams with > failure to notify his change of address - under the Defence Wet. Fined 10s and i costs Ss Oil. , LICENSING ACT. the Police charged an offender with l.viug on licensed premises (Dunedin Hotel) after hours. Ordered to pay 1 costs 7s. A similar charge (Post Office Hotel) against a local resident, for whom slr Wells appeared and pleaded not guilty. Alter hearing evidence a conviction was recorded and a line of 2<).s and cents 7s inflicted. Two other residents were similarly charged (Post Office Hotel). One pleaded not guilty t.Mr Wells). Both were convicted, one being ordered to pay costs 7s and the other fined 20s and costs 7s. On a similar charge (Marquis of I.orne Hotel), two persons did not appear and were ordered to pay costs 7s each. The Police charged Mary .1. Bergstrom (Marquis of Lome Hotel) for whom 51 r Wells appeared, with selling liquor after hours. (6.15 p.m.) and pleaded guilty. Fined C2 and costs 7s and her daughter for supplying, was lined £1 and costs 7s. The Police charged Johanna Bovd. licensee of Occidental Hotel, (51 r slurdnch) with supplying liquor after hours, who pleaded not guilty. After hearing evidence by Constables Best and Dougherty, the charge was dismissed. CHARGE OF SUPPLYING. ]>, P. Villets was charged with being a prohibited person he did procure liquor. Owen Pritchard was charged with obtaining liquor for a prohibited person. 51r Murdoch appeared for the defendants. Constable Barnhill gave evidence of having seen Pritchard leave the Occidental Hotel with his pockets bulging, who went- across to the wharf. V itness followed and saw \( diets in the act of drinking from a bottle ol beer. Pritchard was nearby and another man Woolhouse. Willed s’ ran away when lie saw the Constable. Pritchard denied having supplied the beer. Went across to the Occidental Hotel and the licensee admitted having just sold two bottles of beer to Pritchard. Only a couple of minutes had elapsed Irom the time of Pritchard leaving the hotel till witness saw Widths with the beer. Pritchard later acknowledged having given the ficcr to Willetts and to knowing he was prohibited. Three hours Inter saw Pritchard in ’Willetts’ hut. Willetts took witness on to the road mid there told witness that Pritchard had supplied Hie beer. Ihe bottle produced was found a lew inches Irom where Willetts was silting on the wharf. AVidott.s put the other bottle in bis pocket and ran away. Owen Pritchard gave evidence that ln> was on Hie wharf with Willetts wlieu Constable Randall came along. Did not see Willetts before be went to (lie hotel. lie bought two bottles of beer and went to some steps on Hie wharf and drank the two bottles himself and took his time over it. lie gave no beer to \\ illetts. Some lime after saw Woolhouse and Willetts conic along and they stood in the shed door out of a drizzle that came on. Willetts was walking away when the Constable came along. Did not see Willetts with anv beer. Was surprised to see when tlm Constable came along (hat there was a bottle of beer in a corner ol the door about live feet away. Me had never supplied any beer to Willetts. It, was not unusual for witness to gel two bottles ol beer and go away and drink them himself. He considered lie was three-quarters of an hour in drinking them, .lie did not deny buying the beer to the Constable. Richard P. Willetts gave evidence that lie was on the wharf one Saturday with Pritchard and Woolhouse. lie did not see Constable Randall. Pritchard did not supply witness with any beer that day. He saw no beer on the wlinrl that day. He denied having told the Constable at his but that, Pritchard gave him the beer. He had no beer in his pocket that day. Pritchard had. never supplied beer to witness. He did not see or hear Constable Randall on the wharf. Frederick W. Woolhouse gave evidence he va- on the walirf and saw PriK hard. He did not see Pritchard with any beer. Ho said Constable Randall came along and picked up a bottle of beer, ft was in the corner of the door. lie did not see it till the Constable picked it up. He did not know who put the bottle of beer there. Saw W illetts walk away. He said lie was going to do some business. Did not see Willetts run. He did not see Pritchard give Willetts any beer. sYitnoss was walking along the wharl when he saw Willed Is and Pritchard. Due asked for a cigarette and the other lot a. pipe of tobacco. ] hen the Constable came along. Had soon bottles ol heel on the wharf on many occasions.

His Worship wdd the <|Uestion lie had to decide was who ho could believe. Tie bad to accept the evidence' of Constable Randall. Both men would be convicted. Willetts was fined 20s and costs 7s and Pritchard 40s and costs AFFILIATION CASE. To an undefended affiliation ease an order was made tor payment ot £lB 15s (id expenses of birth, and 12s (id weekly, £5 past, payments due and £3 3s counsels fee (Mr Murdoch). DEBT CASES. Amos Dowell (Mr Elcoek) v. .1. Rutherford claim £i 19s. Judgment iol plaintiff with costs 22s (id. Wild and Bassett (Mr Elcoek) v. Margaret Burrowes claim £l4 14s (>d. Judgment for [ilaintitf with costs £3 Bs. State Advances Department v. 11. Creher, claim £l2 18s Bd. Judgment for ])laintilf with costs 235. Westland Hospital Board v. Alt Phillips claim for £32 2s. Judgment bv consent with costs £1 Its. ' A. Snell (.Mr Sellers) v. R. Stuart claim £3. Judgment for plaintitl with costs £1 15s (id. A. W. Yarrail (Mr Elcoek) v. J. Delaney claim for £1 12s. Judgment for plaintiff with costs Bs. C. Plahlert (Mr Elcoek) v. R. Ward claim £1 7s lid. Judgment for plaintiff with costs Bs. Baker Bros, and Co. (Air Murdoch) v V. M. Malison, judgment summons £•>(; ](j s (id. Order made tor payment forthwith with costs 31s (id in'default 21 days.