MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 10 November 1931, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

j! GKEYMOUTH, November 9. ? At the Magistrate's Court yesterday | business dealt with included.— PEEPING TOM. John Henry Edward Smith, a labourer, was charged that, on October 22. he was found without lawful excuse, but in circumstances not disclosing the commission or intention to commit any other offence, in the enclosed yard of premises occupied by Lena ‘McNeill, of Hall Street, Cobden. Smith pleaded guilty. The Senior-Sergeant stated that on ■two occasions, at night, accused went on to the premises, attracted by the light from a window. The blind was up, and it was the kitchen window. “He went up just to see what he could see, I suppose,” said the Senior-Ser-geant. ; ‘The second time,' he made a noise. The woman went out to see what it was, and recognised him. He admitted the offence to the constable.” The S.M.: Have you anything to say? ■ “Nothing,” replied Smith, “except that I don’t know what made me act like I did.” The S.M. : There is nothing previously against him ? “No, sir,” - replied the Senior-Ser-geant,. 1 The S.M. said .that the offenc§ was a stupid one. To look Into a kitchen might not have been likely to lead to any serious result, but people could not be hanging around houses, looking into windows and so on, and not* ing -like “Peeping Tom,” That must be put down. Accused had no rightto be in the enclosed yard at all, As nothing previously was known, against Smith, he would be treated leniently on this occasion. He would be convicted, and ordered to come up for ' sentence, if cai'led upon within twelve months. LICENSEE FINED.' The licensee of the Cobden Hotel, William Brown, was charged that, on Sunday, October 25, he unlawfully opened his premises for ■ the sale of liquor, and that he unlawfully sold liquor. Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for defendant, and entered a plea of guilty to the charge of sealing. The other charge was withdrawn. The Senior-Sergeant said that three men were found standing at the bar slide, at 10.25 a.m. They \ had drinks in front of them, and a two-shilling piece was on the slide. Defendant was previously convicted for a similar offence, in December, 1929. Mr Hannan said that the facts .were as stated. Defendant had been in the ! Recreation Hotel until about three ! months ago, and it was almost two ! years since he had been before the- j Court. The S.M. imposed a * fine of • £5, s with 10s costs. I Brown was also charged with aid-' ing and abetting two men in.the commission of an “after hours” offence, on Sunday, October 18. Mr Hannan entered' a plea of not guilty. j The S.M. said that he would look' j in'o tile case, and give h'S judgment later, * When the Court resumed at two o'clock, Mr Meklrum referred to authorities on aiding and abetting, and also reviewed the evidence in the . present case. The question was whether defendant, whose duty it was j to look after his licensed house, and | who was in charge of it-, exercised the control which he ought to have exercised. There seemed to be. no doubt that he permitted the two men to remain on the premises. He exercised no control over them. He was lawfully entitled to ask them to leave, and, if they refused, to call upon th? police to eject them. He allowed them to reii!'.v >l . and to try and avoid the podee. There was no doubt that they were illegally on the premises, and subsequently they were convicted for being there after hours. On the authorities, there was no course open to him but to convict defendant of aiding and abetting. He would be fined £2, with 10s costs. ,