MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 26 January 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREYMOUTH, Jan. 26

Charges dealt with yesterday bjy Mr J. G. L. Hewitt S.M. included the following:— A South Beach resident, William Colton, pleaded guilty to damaging * fence, the property of A. E. Izzard. at Karoro, on Saturday night. He was lined Cl, with 4s expenses, an ordered to refund 10s the amount ol the damage. DANGEROUS DRIVING. As the result of a collision at 12.10 a .in. on November 22, on Mawhera Quay, Wiliam Alexander O’Keefe was charged with driving in a manner dangerous to Norman Wills. He pleaded guilty. Defendant said that he was watching the first bus, and failed to notice the second bus. He went to the wrong side of the road in an attempt to avoid the collision. Defendant was fined £2, with 10s costs. O’Keefe was also charged with driving the car without a 1 cense. He pleaded guilty, and was lined 10s "it! £1 costs. EXPENSIVE KNOWLEDGE. Loyola Hales wits charged that, on December 80, be passed a vehicle proceeding in the same directon, at tin intersoption ot Tainui and Macka/ Streets, - i.*: Senior-Sergeant said that defendant was driving a motor-lorry, and passed a horse drawn vehicle. Defendant said be did not know it was wrong to pass on an intersection. The S.M. : It is pretty common all over New Zealand. “I did not know it,” said defendant. The S.M.: Well you know it now! You are fined 10s with 10s costs. For riding an unlighted cycle after sunset, Harvey Grooby was fined 5. with 10s costs. STRUCK WITH HAMMER. A Christmas Eve incident on Boundary Street resulted in the appearance of Michael O’Brien, who was charged with assaulting Stanley Johnson. Mr T. F. Brosnan, for O’Brien, pleaded guilty, and said that O’Brien was under the influence of liquor. He was struck first by Johnson. It was admited that O’Brien had a hammer in his hand. He did not intend to assault Johnson, but had a grievance against another man. The S.M.: It a man is going with a hammer for someone else, I think his friend is fairly justified. Tho Senior-Sergeant stated that at 8.2 b p.m., Johnson was walking along Boundary Street, and stopped to talk to two friends. O’Brien came along, and Johnson said “Good-day.” Without any provocation, O’Brien struck him on the head with the hammer, practically knocking him out. Johnson went to the police station, with a wound on his forehead an inch and n-half long. Witnesses had not been brought to the court, in view of the . plea of guilty. O’Brien was fined £5, and was allowed one month for payment. NEW LICENSING POINT. What was described by the S-M. as a new point, was raised by the police in a licensing case concerning the Central Hotel, Greymoutli, when they wished to give evidence with a view to proving that the licensee was in tlie habit of trading after hours. Th\s was not allowed by tho S.M., and the case was dismissed. The licensee, Patrick Keating, was charged that, on December 24, he unlawfully opened his premises for the sale of liquor. He was also charged with aiding and abetting a number of men, in the offence of being unlawfully on the premises. Keating pleaded act guilty, and was defended by Mr J. W. Hannan. The Senior-Sergeant said that the case was based on the fact that the licensee was a known after-hours trader, and had been convicted several times for trading after hours. Mr Hannan immediately objected to the remarks of the Senior-Sergeant. The case now before the Court had nothing to do with previous convictions, he said, and the remarks of the police were most unfair.

The S.M. said that he had never heard the point raised before in a licensing case. It was quite new. The Senior-Sergeant: It is the only way we can prove he opened the premises for the sale of liquor. The S.M.: For the sake of argument, what are you going to prove, to make it admissable that this is part of a system P The Senior-Sergeant: That the men who visited the premises that night, have also visited them on other nights, when we have caught him trading. The S.M. : How frequently p 1 suppose he liia s been charged on every occasion. When was the last Line; —- Last August. Is that the only eonvj-tion P—No. There about sb\ convictions, from Ito 193).

The S.M. said that he would not take the responsibility of accepting as evidence tin* previous ai fs ol tin* licensee, lie did not thing tl.c evidence in the present, ease w< ut Ini enough. The men caught on ll’.e premises might have h*. cn there lor a purpose other than the procuring ol liquor; they might have been there to hold u meeting, even though the meeting was for an illegal purpose---for sedition, or to hatch a plot to blow up the House of Rariiameiit- -but that.

would not make the licensee liable under the Licensing Act. There were no glasses in sight, or other evidence of after-hours trading. However, the point raised by the police was very interesting, and they could, if they wished, appeal on a point of law, Ihe information would he dismissed. In connection with the second charge, that of aiding and abetting, Mr Hannan submitted that there was no case to answer. The mere fact that the door was locked when the police arrived, he said, did not prove that the licensee locked it. Authorities were quoted by Mr Hannan and the •Senior-Sergeant, and the latter submitted that it was the duty of the licensee to turn the men out, but lie allowed them to remain on the premises, for what purpose lie refused to explain. The S.M. stated that lie would read the authorities, quoted and reserve his decision meanwhile.