MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 6 August 1931, Page 6

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

THURSDAY AUGUST 6. (Before W. Meldrum, Esq. S.M.) DEBT CASES. Wells Bros. (Mr Elcock) v. Alex .Muir, claim £B7 3s Bd. Judgment for plaintiff with costs £5 3s 6d. LICENSING ACT. On charges of being found on licensed premises after hours, Convictions were recorded as follows: An offender (Club Hotel) ordered to pay cosfs 10s. , Five residents (Red Lion Hot 1) simi lar charges. One appeared and gave an explanation which was accepted and the charge was dismissed. The other four were convicted. Two were ordered to pay costs 10s each, one was fined 20s and cost 1 * 10s, and the other 10s and costs 10s, Two residents (Red I,ion Hotel) were defended by Mr Sellers. After hearing evidence, the explanation of one was accepted and the charge dismissed. The other was ordered to pay costs 10s. MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. A. J. Sloss (Mr Park) v. V. H. Wall (Mr Elcock), a charge of carrying passengers in a motor lorry without a license. A plea of not guilty was entered. Defendant gave evidence that he had enquired at the County Office and was told to get a doctor’s certificate, and then he would he able to take a team of footballers without ehaVge. He did as requested No charge was made. He gave them a free ride, no money passing. His Worship said the lorry was licensed for a certain purpose. I'i it wer e used for another purpose then a license should be taken out for that purpose. Passenger whether for hire, or otherwise, was included. Defendant had apparently acted in ignorance. Defendant would be convicted. It was not a case of a heavy penalty. He would be fined 5s and costs 335.

Borough Inspector (Mr Park) v. J. S. Langford (Mr Elcock), a charge of not having a motor driver’s license. Fined 5s and costs 20s (id.

Same v. T. P. O’Neil, a charge of failure to have a. tail light hurninsr on motor car. Fined 5s and costs 2’2s6d. Same v. A. E. Stevens, a similar charge. Fined 5s and costs 20. s 6d.