TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume I, Issue 27, 26 April 1907, Page 2

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

Wednesday, April 24TH, 1907. (Before H. W. Northcroft, S.M.) A TRIVIAL CHARGE. Albert Board was charged with being unlawfully in possession of a tarpaulin belonging to the Railway Department. It was shown in evidence that Mr Board had taken the tarpaulin temporarily to protect an oat stack from rain, and there was no suggestion of dishonest intent. Ills Worship said it was a case which should never have been gone on with, and Mr Board had acted just as he would have done himself in protecting his stack in an emergency. The prosecution indicated a thirst for vengence and nothing detracted from the value of a Court so much as a spirit like that. A technical breach of tho Act had been committed, and defendant would have to pay the costs.

Alfred Scholes was summoned for having the tarpaulin on his land, and explafned that he had allowed Mr Board to crop the paddock with oats. His Worship made some strong remarks about bringing a double-bar-relled charge in such a trivial matter, and said the public could not be expected tpwhold with such prosecutions. The cgfe'e Avas dismissed. A charge against an elderly man for having committed an indecent act at Kio Kio was dismissed upon payment of Court costs. A yfiUOR CASE. Joseph licensee of the Commercial Hotel, Te Awamutu, was charged on the information of the police, with unlawfully sending for conveyance on the railway from Te Awamutu to Te Kuiti, two gallons of whisky, Te Kuiti being situated within that area declared a no-license district. under Section 25 of the Licensing Act, 1881, the same being a breach of a New Zealand Railway by-law. Mr Collins appeared for the defendant and pleaded not guilty. The facts of the case, as outlined by the prosecution, showed that on December 22nd, 1906, a two-gallon jar of whisky, bearing Bathurst's label, was found in a railway carriage addressed to Mr F. Gibson, at Te Kuiti. Nobody in the carriage would acknowledge the responsibility of being in charge of the parcel. Ultimately the whisky was handed over to Mr Gibson. Evidence was given for the prosecution by Constable Matthews at a previous sitting of the Court, stating that there was a large amount of liquor on the train, on the day in question, and he discovered the jar addressed to Mr Gibson. When he spoke to Mr Gibson about the matter, he (Mr Gibson) admitted having sent a letter to Mr Bathurst asking him to give bearer a parcel of whisky. Constable Fraser deposed to seeing liquor in the carriage on the train, on December 22nd, at Otorohanga. There was a large amount of liquor on the train on that day, including at least two ten-gallon kegs of beer, and several jars of whisky. He corroborated Constable Matthews' evidence as to the jar addressed to Mr Gibson. Constable Lander, of Te Awamutu, gave evidence as to interviewing Mr Bathurst with reference to the matter. Bathurst said he had received a letter from Mr Gibson asking him to give "bearer" a certain quantity of whisky. He said he had done so, and wouid not know the man again, as he called at a busy time. Examined by Mr Collins. Witness was at the Te Awamutu station on December 22nd last, and did not see Mr Bathurst there. Frank Robinson Gibson stated that the letter produced was written by him to Mr Bathurst. He sent the letter by a man going to Te Awamutu and received the whisky on the date mentioned. To His Worship: Would sooner not state who took the letter. Gerald Butler Beere, guard on the railway, said he remembered the date in question, and was in charge of the train that day. Did not remember noticing a lot of liquor on the train. There were a number of King Country people on the train. He remembered Constable Matthews at Otorohanga saying something to him about a man having a keg of beer 011 the train.

Constable Matthews: Did I not point out the keg of beer on the platform ? Witness : No. Constable Matthews : Be very careful. His Worship interrupted the examination at this stage and reminded Constable Matthews that the witness was called by the police and the question was irrelevant. Witness stated it was his duty to see that no liquor came into the van. There was a regulation with regard to packages that would not go under the seat, or on the racks. It was a guard's duty to sec that a carriage was free in that respect. Witness would not classify kegs of focer and jars of whisky as personal baggage if such would not go under the seat or on the rack. To his Worship- If luggage of any sort was too large to go under the seat or on the rack it must go into the van. In the case of liquor it must go off the train. Cross-examined by Mr Collins: The regulation with reference to luggage was not always strictly enforced, unless the train was crowded. Roderick McLeod, railway porter, said he remembered December 22nd last. He did not see liquor going on board the train at Te Awamutu. lie had mentioned to the guard that liquor was on the train, but did not notice any on the day in question. Henry Johnson jones, station-mas-ter at Te Awamutu, stated that he would not allow a ten-gallon keg of beer to go on the train as luggage. He did not go through the train to see that there was no over crowding of carriages with luggage, or that parcels of liquor which could not be classed as luggage were on the train. His Worship suggested that it would be advisable for somebody to go through the train at Tc Awamutu and see that the regulation was not being infringed. This course would save trouble to everyone. Mr Jones concurred, and said he would adopt His Worship's suggestion. For the defence, Mr Collins contended there was no case to answer, but !

His Worshipdecided to hear evidence. Joseph Bathurst, the defendant, stated that he received the letter from Mr Gibson, and delivered a jar of whisky to a man who called for it. He did not leave his premises to do so. His Worship dismissed the ease. I.Ktl H)U ON 111 K K A 11. \,V VY. brcdcriek I'hcr, charged with a breach of the railway by-law by bringing 10 gallons of beer and a dozen bodies of whisky on ihe railway to I c Kllili, pleaded not guilty. Mr Mine appeared for defendant. Constable Matthews deposed fo being at Otorohanga on I December 22nd last, and seeing defendant on the train. 011 the platform of a firstclass smoking carriage was a 10-gal-lon keg of beer in a sack, labelled. Inside the carriage was a portmanteau, belonging fo defendant, also containing liquor and labelled. Asked defendant what he was going, lo do do will) all the liquor and he ' replied he was going to drink it. I)clcndant said there were a dozen bodies of whisky in (he portmanteau, lie drew Ihe attention of the guard to the keg of beer on the plat for,n and asked him how it was he c irried the keg'. He replied : " We guess, like yon." Witness rode to Te Kiiili that niglif and saw defendant out on the si reel with several others drinking liquor. He suspected defendant was selling it. He reported the matter and was instructed to prosecute under the bylaw. When summoned, defendant said, " This is a bit of spite, Madhews, because I have been convicted before. Why did you single me out. There were others who had liquor as well as I." By Mr Hine: Witness had no reason to suspect others of selling,. Constable Fraser corroborated (he evidence of Constable Matthews as to seeing the liquor in question on (lie train at Otorohanga. His Worship held that there was no case to answer as the regulation only referred to liquor sent or consigned, and Plicr was bringing the liquor with him as luggage. DAIRY FACTORY CASK. His Worship also heard argument on the law points raised in the case of Walter v. Lever Bros, last Court day. Mr Collins, who appeared for Lever Bros., submitted that the contract between the suppliers and the factory proprietors was still binding, notwithstanding Ihe fact of breaches on both sides. Mr Mine, appearing for plaintiff, contended that the contract in this instance must be. held to be invalid as there had been continued breaches, and fines could not be enforced by Lever Bros. I lis Worship, in delivering judgment, said (here had undoubtedly been breaches on both sides. Judgment would he given for the plaintiff on the claim for £,j lbs and costs, £.S, and 1 .ever Bros., on the counter claim would be- non-suited. His Worship also stated thai there many points in Ihcagrcemcnl between Lever Bros., and the suppliers which if might be desirable to decide, and they could bring' a special action for the purpose.