MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 30 April 1931, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY, APRIL 30,

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

CHARGE WITHDRAWN

Police v. W. J. Singer. Sergt King asked for leave to withdraw the charge (the defendant having been committed to a mental hospital). The charge was withdrawn. LICENSING ACT.

The adjourned charge against two local residents of being on licensed' premises (Pioneer Hotel) for whom Mr Murdoch appeared, was called. Counsel addressed the Court and Sergt. King put in a recent decision. His Worship convietd both defendants. One was ordered to pay 10s costs and the other fined 20s and costs 10s.

Four residents charged with being found oil licensed premises (Masonic Hotel) were convicted, one being fined 10s and costs 10s, and the three others ordered to pay costs 10s each. DEBT CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following cases:— Hallenstein Bros. (Mr Elcock) v. E. Henham claim £1 12s 6d and costs. Same v. F. Saxon senr., claim £3 19s Lid, ulid costs 23s 6d.. Saule v. 1L Wakelin, claim £1 and costs 10S. The police charged Laurie Georgs (Mr Elcock) with allowing two hond of cattle to wander off the railway liuo near Arahuva. Fined 5s and coats 15s. Borough Inspector (Mr Park) v. T. Raines, a charge of allowing cattle to wander. Charge dismissed, wrong own* jr being sued. WANDERING CATTLE. Two charges of allowing cattle to wander, against ±u. Connelly (Mr Sellers) were admitted. Fined os and costs 10s on one charge and 5s and! costs 20s 6d on the other. MAINTENANCE

In a charge o»f a beach of a main- . enance, order, ,F. West v. John West, Jr Murdoch appeared for, applicant, mter . made "for. - payment of £3 per nonth off arrear, in default one month luprisonment: • ■> RULING WANTED. /•

Traffic Inspector, ’ A. J. Sloss (Mr r, ark) v. J. P./Coulson (Mr Elcock). a •barge of operating a 1 motor lorry «ir :he carriage of passengers without ,uch motor lorry being licensed for the arriage of passengers or tor . the cartage of goods and passengers contrary o the “Motor Lorry Regulations 927/’

The facts .were admitted, the question asked for being a ruling on the Act ■n the particular section.,

A. J. Sloss said Coulson said the arrangement lrinde was for payment by he workmen for carrying them to and Wh work, not payment by the Commny employing them. Coulson had a icense for currying good?, hut not for passengers.

His Warship held that under the regulations Coulson was not liable to .ake out a license for passengers, as le was only carrying workmen to and Tom work for one Company. The •liarge would be dismissed.