MAGISTRATE’S COURT
GREYMOUTH SITTING.
GREYMOUTH, September 6.
At the Magistrate’s Court, Mr MelBrum S.M., dealt with the following cases yesterday:
Running a Raffle.
• John'Erie Ridden was charged that at , Bell Hill, on August ,8* 1932,. he did establish ' a lottery - * "wherein £2 in money were to be competed for by a mode of chance;' He';pleaded guilty. The Senior-Sergeant said that defendant [formed the idea of running the raffle for £5 to assist . a family named Butterwojtn: ft Bell Hi}]. Mrs •Butterworth •• was ill and her husband had been unemployed for some time. Defendant thought he would spring a pleasant surprise on them by handing them a few pounds. He bought a small ; notebook and started collecting shil- , lipgs for the raffle. Sixty-three persons paid in a shilling eadh but as the raffle dragged on and was not drawn At > the stated ''time, some of the people complained. Defendant then decided ?to “‘wind it up,” and as he had not much money he reduced the prize to £2. Complaints were then 'made to the police that the prize had been reduced from £5 to £2. The draw took . place at a dance at . Bell Hill on Saturday, August 6, a lady drawing the winning number from a hat. The balance of the money, 23/wai handed to Mrs Butterworth, who atated to- the'police that she knew nothing about the raffle until the money was given to her. /'Apparently the spirit was right, but the act was unlawful,” concluded the Senior-Ser-geant. ; . .•Defendant was convicted and discharged, 2/6 witness’ expenses being allowed against him.
Licensing Charges Dismissed. John Darwell, licensee of the Union Hotel charged that oii August 13, 1932, during prohibited hours he did: (1) Open the premises for the sale of liquor; (2) sell liquor on the premises ; and (3) did, assist, counsel, and procure the commission of an offence by ten others who were
found on the premises during closed hours. Defendant,' who was not represented by counsel, pleaded not guilty to all charges. The Senior-Sergeant said that the men concerned in the third charge had all been before the Magistrate in previous cases,, and only one charge had been dismissed. The police had no direct evidence that liquor was actually sold. Sergeant D. B\ Murray said that about 9 p.ni., on August 13, he visited the Union Hotel in'company with Constables Hill, Brown and Robinson. Constable Brown was stationed at the back entrance, while the remaindre of the party went to the front, Constable Robinson remaining on the road. The bar was lighted, when the party came along the road, and when witrfess rang the front door bell, he heard men running from the bar in the direction ofyilie hack door. He heard the slide 'of the bar being pulled down, and the sounds of men running along the gravel path. The door was opened after he had rung the bell four times,' and five minutes elapsed between the time he first rang. and the time the door was opened. The bar was in darkness when witness entered, and the doors were locked. The licensee, was not to be found. Witness then went outside, and found two men crouched at the foot of the ‘front fence. They climbed over the fence, when he approached them, and Constable Robinson caught one of them outside. Witness went to get the licensee, when all the men had been caught, and found him in his bedroom sitting down, and talking to his wife and a lady'and gentleman, who had come to visit themi At witness’ request defendant came downstairs, and saw the men in the backyard, ' He said he had no'; explanation to give, he did- not know the men were tlere. Defendant said he was in charge and had the keys, and that he did not let the men on to the premises. Defendant accompanied witness on - a search of the bedrooms upstairs, but only one man was discovered, and he escaped. The bar, which was locked, was then examined. Two glasses with a little beer in each were 'on the bar, - and the bar counter and floor were | sprinkled with beer. In the sink there Were six glasses, and tlie sink had j beer in it. • A little distance away 1 there were five , more glasses in a tin,
and some of these had beer in them. Defendant explained that the bar had not been cleaned up since witness’ earlier visit at 6 p.m. On witness’ visit, he met the licensee, who said that everything was alright, and that all the men were out. Witness inspected the bar parlour on his first visit and there were then no glasses in there. When he returned , later there were two glasses on the counter, and there was a little beer in each. The beer in those glasses and in the glasses in the bar, did not look as it it had been there from 6 p.m. There was still froth on it.
Constable R. Hill corroborated the Sergeant’s evidence, and gave evidence of finding three men in the woodshed.
Constable G. J. Robinson also corroborated the evidence, and said he saw two men climb over the front fence, and he caught one. Witness stayed on the road, and did not enter the hotel. He saw the light go out in the bar soon after the Sergeant rang the bell. John Darwell, the defendant, said he knew nothing of the men’s presence on the premises, until he was brought downstairs by the Sergeant. He did not wish to say he did not so 11 after hours. He did. He had been caught before, nnd would be very fortunate if he was not caught again,. If hotels did not sell after hours, the licensees might as well go on the dole. He did not sell liquor t-o the men found on the premises by the police. The police had raided and had missed. When the Sergeant found witness sitting in his bedroom, his wife was downstairs .making a cup of tea for the visitors, She was not then with witness and the visitors. To the Senior-Sergeant: He could not explain Constable’s Robinson’s! statement that he saw the light go put in the bar. He did not hear the door bell ring. He did not deny that the men were there, but said he did not know of their presence until he he came downstairs into the backyard with the Sergeant.
The S.M. said, in regard to the charges of “selling” and “opening for sale,” that there was no direct proof of an offence. Those two charges would be dismissed. Again in the remaining . charge there was no definite proof that defendant knew the inert were on the premises, and that charge would also be dismissed.
Overloading Buses. Reserved judgment was given this morning in the eases in which John Henry Clarke, Traffic Inspector for the Main Highways' Board, proceeded against James Kennedy and John James Kennedy, Herbert McGlashan,. Dudley Polfard and Kennedy Bros.; and Reginald Stephen Wells, for openating heavy motor vehcles on August 10, on the Westport-Greymouth road, licensed for the carriage of pasengers, and carrying a greater number of passengers han such vehicles were licensed to carry under the Heavy, Motof * "Vehicle' 1932.' After reviewing the evidence, th® S.M. referred to Section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act, which empowered him to dismiss the charge with or without costs. The charges were only in regard to isolated cases of overloading, there being no evidence before him of . overloading at any other time. The breaches took place on the occasion of the West Coast—-England , League match at Wingham Park, where there were insufficient buses to cope with the large crowd. He proposed to deal with the matter under Section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act. WSile technically, there had been breaches, he considered that in view of the circumstances the ends of justice would be met by his dismissing all of the informations, conditionally upon each defendant paying he sum of 5/- into Court, which amount he considered represented the fares of the passengers carried in. excess of the licensed load, the amount to be forwarded to the Commissioner of Transport, Wellington. Defendants agreed to pay the 5/-, and the informations were dismissed as trivial. ‘
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19320906.2.4
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 6 September 1932, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,384MAGISTRATE’S COURT Hokitika Guardian, 6 September 1932, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.