Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, JUNE 7th

(Before W. Mcldrum, Esq., S.M.) DEBT OASES. In a. judgment summons ease after hearing defendant, no order was made. Mr Murdoch for defendant, Air Sellers for plaintiffs. C. T. Woo I house (Mr Elcock) v. W. AVall ,fr. claim £2G 12s 3d. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £4 3s Gd. DEFENCE ACT. H. G. liraodlient (Mr Murdoch) was charged with failure to render personal service under the Defence Act. Fined 10s and costs Jss on each of two charges. LICENSING ACT. Two young men charged with being on licensed premises after hours (Empire Hotel, Ivanieri) were convicted and ordered to pay costs 10s each. The police charged Edwin Howat (licensee of the Empire Hotel, Kanieri) with oil May 21st, supplying liquor after hours, and with keeping open for sale, and C. Pfahlert with being unlawfully oil the premises after hours. Air Murdoch for defendants pleaded not guilty. After hearing the evidence of Constable Drummond and the two defendants his Worship stated there was no doubt that the defendant (Pfahlert) went to the hotel for a business purpose, hut he should have left when the business was concluded. Instead he waited for a drink, which the licensee offered. He would he convicted of being unlawfully on the premises and ordered to pay costs 10s. There was no proof of a sale by the licensee and the charges against him would he dismissed.

The police further charged Edwin Howat (Air Alurdoch), with on May 23rd. keeping open, exposing for sale and. selling after hours, and he pleaded not guilty. After hearing the evidence of Constable Drummond, the licensee. N. Alanson and AA r . Hutchison, his Worship said the prosecution was based on suspicion, hut there was no evidence of having sold any liquor or opened the bar for the purpose, hut it was proved that the licensee went into the bar for the purpose of supplying a hoarder.* The charge would be dismissed.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19280607.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 7 June 1928, Page 1

Word count
Tapeke kupu
326

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Hokitika Guardian, 7 June 1928, Page 1

MAGISTRATE’S COURT Hokitika Guardian, 7 June 1928, Page 1

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert