MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 2 April 1932, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

HOKITIKA SITTING CONGLUDkB

CHARGE O-F INSULTING LANGUAGE.

The Mags t rate’* Court at Hokitika yesterday < .at until nearly three o'clock, before Air Meldrum, S.M.

ON LICENSED PREMISES. Four men were charged with being found on the premises of the Royal Mail Hotel, at Woodstock, alter hours. Consta,blf* Drummond, giving evidence against one of the defendants said that the latter was admittedly on the premii es for the, purposes of having a drink at the expense of the llbenlsd;* Defendant was ordered fco pay costs. 0 Dealing with the others, Constable Drummond said that the men undoubtedly went to the hotel to transact business,' hut Instead of leaving* they had iomained to consume liquor. '(’he licensee said that he thought he was within his rights in treating the men as guests, and had asked them to have a drink at his expense, immediately the business part, of their visit had been transacted. Had ho thought it unlawful, the men would not have been asked to remain. The other three were ordered to pay costs

BREACHES OF BY-LAWS.

For riding a, cycle after dark with-

out a light, John .Maloney was fined os and costs. Maloney was also charged with having no reflector on his cycle, and was ordered to pay costs.

A third charge, that of using abusive and insulting words in a public place, was also preferred against Maloney, who pleaded not guilty. Constable Randall gave evidence of the facts leading up to the charge, defendant saving “vour’e a b |) Ynur'e like Drummond, a b- of a man.”

Defendant ijyitified his willing nos*? to enter the box, and upon doing so, said “Well, wlmt am 1 to say?” He denied using insulting language, butsaid “that perhaps a few words were ii,,od, a little out of place.”

Constable Drummond said that defendant had told witness that ho had meant what he had said about Constable Randall.

Defendant: Really, Constable, did I say that. I’m sure I didn't. Sergeant King: Do you swear.that? Defendant: Well. . . ■ Magistrate: You will be fined IPs and costs.

UNEMPLOYMENT LEVY CASES. Five charges of failing to nav the unemployment levy were preferred by F. 6 Davies, Inspector of Factories, against John Anderson, a farmer, of AVaitalia. Mr C. .1. P. Sellers appeared for defendant. Defendant said that lie had no means of bis own, and was able only to do a little work, ao he had only

one arm, and fingers were missing from his other hand.

The Magistrate: You should have applied for exemption, instead of putting the Department to some expense.

Defendant said that he had a number of cheep, and a few acres of land. He had not registered, and had paid no levy.

“I thought I would he exempt m any ea.se, so I did not bother,” added defendant.

He was lined 5s and ordered, to pay costs on the first charge, and ordered to pay costs on the remaining charges.

('I IA PG E AG A INST EMPLOYERS. A charge cf failing to deduct the emergency unemployment charge from wages was brought against J. J. Heveldt. butcher of Ross, by the Inspect or of Factories. Air Sellers appeared for defendant. Ihe Inspector said that defendant’.!* son was working for his father, who had failed to deduct the levy. Defendant said that his son only came into the shop at odd times, in return for which he received his board. He denied that his son was employed jn the business, only when witness was busy did his .son give him assistance at times. The case was dismissed.