TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 149, 22 April 1909, Page 2

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

Wednesday, April 21, 1909

Before Mr Loughnan, S.M

Prior to the usual business of the court Mr Hine, as senior member of the Bar present, welcomed Mr Loughnan and congratulated him upon his elevation to the Bench. He trusted His Worship would preside on the Bench for many years and that the same cordial and friendly relations between bench and Bar would obtain as had been the case with His Worship's predecessor. His Worship, in thanking the Bar for their good wishes, said the business of the Court was always facilitated by the establishment of cordial relations between Bench and Bar and he hoped to come within measureable distance of his predecessor who was a widely popular magistrate.

—Civil Cases —

Judgment went by default in the following cases: Murchie (Mr Hine) v. Coutts, £5 15s and costs, £1 4s 6d; Blackman and Cobb (Mr Hine) v. Jensen, £8 4s 2d and costs, £1 8s 6d; Austin (Mr Sharpies) v. Jensen Bros. £2 and coats, £1 Is. —Judgment Summonses. — Morgan (Mr Hine) v. Box. Order made for payment forthwith or in default seven days' imprisonment; Green and Colebrook v. Tangiweti. Mr Hine for plaintiffs and Mr Finlay for defendant. Adjourned sine die, seven days' notice to be given of intention to have the case brought on. —A Liquor Case. — In the case against C. C. Walker and R. Hewer for bringing liquor intended for sale into the district, and in which judgment had been reserved by Mr Cutten from last Court day the written judgment of Mr Cutten was delivered. The Magistrate elected" to disbelieve the evidence of Walker and his witnesses and with regard to the gift of whisky to Hewer assumed that the gift had been arranged between the men, when the police were sighted. He was satisfied the liquor was not intended for an innocent purpose, and the fact that sales were being held at Te Kuiti and Aria tb day following the seizure, probably accounted for the bringing in of the ilquonr. Walker was fined £2O and costs and Hewer, who the Magistrate considered was probably a catspaw of Walker's, £lO and costs. Mr Sharpies, on behalf of defendants, gave notice of appeal, the security being fixed at £43.

—Police v. Moses. —

Simeon Moses was charged with having taken an order for liquor within a prohibited area. Mr Mays prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Sharpies appeared for the defence and pleaded not guilty. The facts were that Mr J. Smith, requested Mr Moses to send him a case of stout as Mrs Smith was ill and had been ordered stout by the doctor. Mr Moses pointed out that he could not send the stout to Te Kuiti, but eventually promised to send it to Te Awamutu. This was done, and Mr Smith when going to Te Awamutu, on January 29th, mentioned the matter to Constable Mathew and asked him if he could legally employ a carrier to cart the case to his house. Subsequently the Constable elicited the facts and took action. Mr Sharpies said he had pleaded not guilty to bring out the facts of the case, and this being done, he withdrew that plea and pleaded guilty. He submitted that though a technical breach had been committed, such had been done unwittingly. A fine of £5 and costs, £3 12s was imposed. —Obstructing the Poundkeeper. — A Maori named Puna, was charged with having on February 29th last rescued two horses which Duncan Mac-* diarmid, the Te Kuiti poundkeeper, was driving to the pound. Mr H;ne appeared for the prosecution. Duncan Maediarmid, the informant, stated in evidence that when driving a mob of horses to the p n und on the day in question, when nearing the pound, defendant rode up and said two horses of his were in the mob, and that witness was not going to pound them. Witness replied that defendant could get the horses from the pound. Defendant then interfered with the horses and succeeded in turning them back. Out of the mob of twelve only one was eventually taken to the pound, and defendant secured his own two horses. Defendant did not tender payment for the horses' poundage fees. Evidence was also given by G. Derbyshire corroborating infoymant ? s statements.

The Defendant admitted rescuing the horses, but stated he did rjot know the pound was established. Asked informant why he had not given notice to the Maoris. MacDiarmid directed him to the notice board of the pound.

His Worship held that as the pound had only been recently established defendant may have been unaware of its existence. All the same it was a serious offence. A fine of 5s and costs £3 16s 6d was inflicted. —A Liquor Case. — James McColl was charged with having brought whisky, intended for sale into the district. Mr Selwyn Mays prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Sharpies appeared for the defence. The case had previously been brought before Mr Cutten, and had been dismissed as the wrong man had i been charged. Subsequently an information was laid against th : present defendant, and was dismissed by Mr Widdowson, S.M., for lack of evidence. A further information was laid, and the evidence of F. Hearn and J. Conijell was brought to prove the bringing in of the liquor, An objection by Mr Sharpies to exclude the evidence pf tlje prosecution was over ruled by the Bench. Hearn and Connell testified to the „ bringing of the liquor from Te Awamutu. For the defence evidence was given ly th'. 1 defendant, his uncle, and F. Hurk-y, as to th<: Mquor having been drunk on the road, at the camp of dee.r lint, and "at Hurley's residence, am; tkat in sad- teen y'a-.'c. Ik a rick enike ■ . vers-.-i h- the Roads e!,ara:t'.r and th. tic ns waaei His Wi.rhhp hkd ikat "the krfcrdant hiei i.ci eis/iiirei-n ~ .i i .-~ >'<niC;n was cast ujx»« hsn. l-y the .-ict pi wc-. - ing his innocence and inflicted a' line , of £2O and costs £l-i 18s. " j

—Another Liquor Case. — J. M. Bird was charged with having in February last brought liquor, intended for sale, into the district. Mr Selwyn Mays appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Finlay for the defence.

Constable Mathew gave evidence a to the liqour being brought to Te Kuiti by the defendant on the date in question. When accosted defendant said he had brought it in openly, had paid £5 5s for it, and that he could do as he liked with it, as long as he did not sell it.

The liquor was taken to defendant's whare, and that evening up to a late hour people were drinking at the place.

In cross-examination witness said the parcels were properly labelled. There was no attempt at concealment. He never saw Bird deliver whisky to anybody. For the defence Mr Finlay drew attention to the cu itom of the place. It was no uncommon thing for a person to bring whisky to the district for his own use and for the entertainment of hi* friends; in fact the custom was general. - Nothing in the nature of a sale took place and he would bring a number of reputable witnesses to support the statement, and also to testify as to what took place with regard to the case in question. The defendant in evidence admitted bringing in liquor and accounted for the getting rid of it by stating that a demi John which comprised portion erf consignment was to replace son*:- whisky i which defendant had to deliver to MaiI roa and which had been partly used by defendant and his men on the road". With regard to the ren-air.oer. bottles to the number of six were given to various friends at Te Kuiti and the remainder was drunk by defendant and others. No money was obtained for any of the liquor. Details as to the amount drunk between Friday and Monday were given the last bottle being taken on the road on Monday. Cross-examined by Mr Mays, defeni dant stated the practice followed in the ; district was for people to share whisky with their friends when they got it, not with any definite understanding that the liquor would be returned. No doubt it was returned in a sense, but not in the way of repayment. Defendant detailed the circumtances surrounding the giving of bottles to various people. He had previously brought in liquor but not frequently. He remembered bringing three bottles up last November, but had brought none up at Christmas. Last May had brought a case. Remembered no other occasion.

J. B. Young gave evidence as to helping to drink the whisky. Defendant was a friend of his, and had frequently had drinks with him There was never any idea of payment. A lengthy cross examination failed to elicit anything further of importance except thnt witness supported the statements with reference to the custom of the place in regard to liquor. Evidence was a-so given by Messrs Ormsby, Erikson, and three drivers in the defendant's employ, with regard to the drinking of the whisky, the witnesses stating that nothing in the nature of a sale took place. The Court sat until rearly one o'clock, and Mr Finlay intimated that he had still several witnesses to call.

His Worship decided to adjourn the case until next Court day.