MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 24 January 1933, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

GREVMOUTH CASES

GREYMOUTH, Jan 24

At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday Mr Mcklrum, S.M., dealt with a number of cases including the following : '

STREET-FIGHTERS FINED. After -an argument about football, Alexander Agnew and Richard William O'Neil came to blows, in Mackay Street, about two o’clock on Christmas morning, and wore separated by Constable Patterson. They were each charged with lighting in a public place, a.ml on their, behalf, Mr M. B. James pleaded guilty. The S.M. pointed out that the offence was committed in a public place, but Mr James remarked that it was at an early hour in the morning. They should keep better hours, said the ,S.M. He fined each defendant 10-s, with iOs casts, and made no order With regard to publication of their names. They were also ordered to pay 5s witnesses* expenses,

THEFT OF GOAT. Pleas of guilty were entered by Jack Ord and John Charles Withcrington when they were charged that, at Aratika, on or about August 27, they stole a goat valued at £2, the property of William Mallinson. The Senior-Sergeant said that the goat used to wander on the railway line in the vicinity of Orel's place. Accused said, that they tool; the goat, as it would only get rum over by a train. When, they found that the police were making enquiries, some time later, they returned the goat to its owner. Both ...accused . had previous convictions for. theft; Ord for an offence in 1931, and Witheri.ngton for three offences in 1929. Accused were fined 10s each, and ordered to pay 11s 8d witness’ expenses, between them.

MINING OFFENCES. The Inspector of Mines (Mr C. .1 Strongman) proceeded on several informations alleging breaches of the )C:r.l Miro*. Act, 1825. Robert Richmond was charged that. on December 15, at Rewanui, being a person employed as a coal hewer in Duggan ia".id party’s mine, where props and bars are used for supporting the roof under which the work of getting coal and filling tubs is carried on, lie did fail systematically and adequately to support the roof of the working face, -at such regular intervals, and in such a manner as specified by notice at the mine.

William Richmond, manager of Duggan and party’s mine at Rewanui, was charged that, on December 15, he failed within the preceding three months to take the test representative samples of du«t from the floor, roof, and sides of the mine, as required by Regulation 23S <3) (g). James Unwin, manager or Sparks and party’s mine at Rewanui, was char (if: cl with a similar offence on December' 15. Nome of the defendants eppea-rod. Inspector Strongman gave, evidence regarding his visits to the mines, and his disgbverv of the offences. In connection Svitli the oa-Sp, 'against Robert Richmond, the prosecution- was taken with a view to minimising the number of seriouis accidents caused by breaches of the timbering regulations. The other two cases were not -n serious; “it was just a matter of keeping them ut> to the mark.”

Robert Richmond w inl s fined ° 9 - with 14,q costs, and the other two defendants were each fined £l, with 14s costs.

LICENSEE 'FIXED. Tho licensee of the Duke of Edinburgh. Hold, Annie MeTntvre, was

charged that, on December 31, she opened her premises for the sale of liquor, and sold liquor, after hours. Air T. F. Brosnan, for defendant, formally pleaded not guilty. The S.M. said that the circumstances occurred on New Year’s Eve, when there wer e numbers of visitors to the town, and lodgers were inviting their friends to drink with them. The. circumstances were unusual. In the present case, the hotel seemed to have been full of gu-ents, and they were inviting their friends to drink with them. The authorities were very clear that, although a lodger was entitled to treat his bona fide guest to liquor, during the course of entertaining that guest they were equally clear that, if even a lodger invited a person in for the purpose of having a drink, -and that person -accepted, he was uni awfully on the promises. The distinction was very clearly drawn between a bona fide guest - who was spending the evening with a lodger, and a man who was invited in by a lodger, solely for tho purpose of having a drink; therefore, even if they were there at the invitation of lodgers, they were unlawfully on tho premises. The onus was on the licensee, not to supply anyone who was not lawfully entitled to he supplied.’ Even on such an occasion -as New Year’® Eve, the licensee was expected to exercise strict supervision. Airs Alclntyre appeared not to have supplied the liquid herself, but /she had a person there fully authorised by her to supply, and the onus was on tire barmaid to exercise the same strict care that the law threw upon the licensee. He did not think that he could deal with the matter ns trivial. If he were to do that, it would he tantamount to saying that anybody could invite anybody else intan hotel, to have a drink on New Year’s Eve. That was not the intention. of the Legislature. As the licensee had no convictions for over two years' and six mouths, he would tiv,si A her as a first offender. She would ho convicted on the charge of opening the premises for the sale oF liquor, and would be fined £2, with ]()s rests. The Senior-Sergeant withdrew the second charge. In reply to the S.M., he said lie believed that ’tho man who wnd he went to the hotel for brandy for medicinal pu'-Jposjes' did go for that purpose. Tie had no liquor in front of him, as did the other men ini the parlour. The S'.AT. said that he would lie convicted without penalty. Three of tho other man were convicted and ordered to pay costs and one, a second offender, was fined £], with costs.