TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 114, 10 December 1908, Page 5

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

Wednesday, Dec. 9th, 190 i !. Before Mr Cutten, S.M. A man named McGilton, charged with having unlabelled liquor in his possessed was convicted and fined £5 and costs.

Insulting Language. Harry Donkin on a charge of indecent language at Mangapehi was defended by Mr Sharpies, and pleaded not guilty. Evidence was given by Lily Rollond as to the language being used by defendant in his shop, and on the railway property afterwards, during an altercation

Phoebe McGill corroborated Mrs Rollond's testimony as to the altercation and the language used. W. 0. Irvine deposed to hearing defendant say to Mrs Rollond to send her husband down and he would fight him. A Native, who was in defendants' shop at the start of the altercation, also gave evidence. Mr Sharpies at this point decided to withdraw the plea of not guilty, which had been entered by his cilent at his suggestion, for the purpose of bringing out the circumstances. Defendant was put in the witness box and admitted using the language under provocation. Evidence was given by F. Rose to the effect that complainant was a quarrelsome person. His Worship in reviewing the case said that in view of all the evidence, if the action were a civil one he would have to seriously consider if it should not be dismissed, as he was inclined to the belief that the woman had used bad language to the defendant at the commencement of the altercation. However, was guilty of a serious offence in using obscene language. The only redeeming feature was that he had come to court and had not told any lies about the occurrence. This fact, and his expression of regret would be considered; still the offence could not be treated lightly and a fine of £5 and costs £3 4s would be inflicted. Rose v. Mound: This was a claim for £5 5s for services in connection with a confinement case at Mangapehi. Mr Hine appealed for the plaintiff and Mr Broadfoot for the defence. The parties to the case both reside at Mangapehi, and Mrs Rose was called to attend defendnt's wife in premature confinement, for which the amount £5 5s was claimed. The attendnce was admitted, but it was contended the charge was too higfc. Evidence was given : 'or plaintiff by Dr Zobel and Mrs Main, and for the defence by defendant, his wife and her sister, Mrs Rollond. His Worship held that the charge was excessive and gave judgment for £3 3s, with costs £4 4s. Thomas Kawe, for whom Mr Broadfoot appeared, was charged with supplying liquor to a half caste Native for consumption off the premises. The person to whom defendant was charged with delivering the liquor was defendant's father Evidence to the effect that T. Kawe, senior, ,was a half caste living as a European was given by C.' Harrison, W. 0. Irvine, and Kawe himsel ', and the Magistrate held there was no case to answer.

Joseph Wallace was charged with having liquor, intended for sale, in his possession at Aria on November 28th last. Mr Broadfoot appeared for accused. Constable Mathew in outlining the case stated that recently there had been a large quantity of liquor brought into the district, and he bad reason 'to suspect that some of it was being sold. Th 3 information was laid under the section of the Act which, in cases where there was reason to suspect liquor was being brought into the district for sale, the onus of proving to the contrary was thrown upon accused. The Constable stated in evidence that on November 28th, Wallace arrived at Te Kuiti with a case of whisky. He took the liquor to Aria, which was within the prohibited area. In reply to Mr Broadfoot, the Constable stated he did not remember seeing the defendant with grog before.

The defendant in evidence said he had purchased a case of whisky at Te Awamutu and brought it to Te Kmiti. He took it to his camp at Aria and he and his mates and some friends drank it. Those who helped to drink the liquor w;re Gardner, Hewlett, Harris and Paul, besides two men who rode past on the Sunday. The liquor was all finished between Saturday night and Sunday. Cross-examined by Constable Mathew, defendant said he borrowed the money with which the whiskey was purchased from Gardner. He borrowed £6 and intended to pay a judgment debt of £5 lis but met a friend named Hearne at Te Kuiti and went with him to Te Awamutu, and purchased the whi-iky. A considerable quantity of whisky had gone out to Aria district of late. Witness could not say how much of the liquor each had drunk. He had given Gardner back 29s 6d change from the £6 cheque. Defendant's evidence was corroborated by Hewlett and Paul, but Gardner denied having received any change from Wallace.

His Worship asid he had no doubt as to the case, The discrepancy in the evidence of Wallace and Harris had given the whole show away. People were apt to think there was no inherent moral wrong in selling grog, but the simple fact of breaking any law of one's country was a moral wrong. Grog selling was a practice which ultimately dragged a man down to the depths, and he was sorry to think a young man like defendant had engaged in it. He was of opinion it w-as a first offence and he tru ;ted it would be a last. A fine of £2O and costs would be inflicted.

Information was laid against a number on Aria settlers of bringing liquor not a prohibited Native area in such quantity as to give reasonable grounds for suspecting such liquor was for sale. J. McColl, J. McConnell, F. Hearne, J. Reardon, G. Middleton, and A. Hogg, were called upon to explain what had become of liquor they had brought into the district. McConnell was undefended and Mr Hine appeared for the other defendants. Constable Mathew said that these cases were very similar with regard to detail. Defendants had brought up a considerable quantity of liquor from Te Awamutu and brought most of it to Aria. There -was so much liquor

j being brought to the district that it ; was reasonably to assume it was being \ sold. The Conrtabie stated in evidence : that on November 23rd, he saw Midj dleton, Ifeardon, and Hogg get off the J (rain at Te Awamutu. Each had a ; case of whisky, Middleton's being j divided into two parcels. Two days ! later Hogg went to Te Awamutu and | returned with another case. Middleton said he had a half share in the last case. When asked what he had done with the other case he said ! "drank it old man.'' Between the 23 rd and 25th he had noticed a number of people under the inuflence of drink. Some were Maoris. Witness had also seen men come in from the backblocks and knew they had got liquor without going to Te Awamutu for it. Hogg and Middleton had liquor j with them about the streets. j

In reply to Mr Hine, witness said Hogg had brought up liquor pretty often ; Middleton not so often, and this was the first time he had seen Reardon with liquor. About a month ago Hogg brought up a case. In reply to a question as to whether it would not be quite a natural thing for a man in the backblocks to get up a case occasionally for his own use, witness said it did not keep. Evidence was given by defendants. Middleton said he had sold a section, and was celebrating the event by treating his friends to whisky. No secret was made of the fact. As to the second case Hogg had brought up, witness saw Constable Mathew talking to Hogg, who had a case of whisky. Witness took the case and gave it to Reardon to take on the horse. Witness believed he said the whisky would square them up after the spree. They arrived at Aria about 12 o'clock the same night. Could not say exactly how much of thj, case each drank.

To the Bench : They rode back. About a case and a half of whisky was taken to Aria. He and his friends drank it.

Hogg and Reardon gave evidence on similar lines.

The case against McColl, McConnall and Hearne, showed that the defendants each brought a case of whisky from Te Awamutu and got out at Te Kumi station, about 2 miles below Te Kuiti. The liquor was taken to Aria next day.

The defendant Hearne stated they came from Te Awamutu together. The defendant McColl was not with them. His brother was. McColl was somewhat under the influence of drink and they decided to get out at Te Kumi and walk to Te Kuiti. Witness brought his case of whisky to his camp and it was drunk by himself and his friends. The case lasted about four or five days. There was a good number of men employed in the district on the roads. Witness had a section and was working on the road. He had not had a hoiday for about tweve months, and this was the first time he had brought liquor into the district. Did not know of liquor being sold in the district. McConnell gave similar evidence and stated the whisky he had brought up was drunk by himsef and friends. Four bottles were drunk the night they arrived. Next day he went to Paemako and on the road his horse had a fall and four bottles were broken. The other four bottles were drunk by himself and friends at Paemako. The trip cost him about £5. His Worship in delivering judgment said that it was a most extraordinary physiological coincidence that together with th? employment of a large number of men in the district, defendants were seized with a philanthropic desire to entertain their friends in a lavish and expensive manner. He had no doubt about the case, but. was sorry for Reardon and Hearne, as they had evidently got into bad company. Defendants would be convicted and each fined £2O and costs. In McColl's case there had been a mistake in serving the summons on the wrong brother, and he directed that the other brother should be proceeded against.

Notice of appeal was given by Mr Hine on behalf of G. Middleton, and His Worship fixed the security at £ls in addition to the fine and costs. —Civil Cases. - Judgment went by default in the following cases :-- Rouse v. Puru.— Amount claimed, £3 5s and costs. Same v. Heu Heu. - Amount claimed £1 15s, and costs 15s. McNaught (Mr Hine) v. Kearns. Amount claimed £4 0s 6d, and costs. Green and Colebrook (Mr Hine) v. Taylor. Amount claimed £3 9s 3d, and costs 10s. Roberts v. Volkes : Plaintiff claimed £3 10s 4d for erecting a house for defendant at Niho Niho, and defendant counter-claimed £l3 10s, for work done for Plaintiff. Mr Sharpies appeared for Plaintiff. After hearing evidence of both parties judgment was given for Plaintiff for| the full amount arid costs £4 14s. The counter-claim w-aa disallowed, with costs £1 la,

Judgment Summonses,

In the case of Green and Colebrook v. Toa, an order for payment forthwith was made, or in default, 7 days imprisonment,