MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 332, 28 January 1911, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

; TE KUITI FRIDAY. ; (Before Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M.) I MISCELLANEOUS. 1 Two Aria farmers had a quarrei as • regards the outcome of local politics, etc. The unpleasantness resulted ! that the defendant was lined 10s with j costs ,iM 3s. I Geo. McKay, storekeeper, I'io Pio, ; was charged with Sunday trailing. Mr Finlav appeared for defendant, i who pleaded not guilty. Evidence I showed that it wa= bread which was ! delivered on that day. His Worship 1 said that perishable goods like bread | were not within the meaning of the ; Act and defendant was justified ac- | cording to his plea of it having been 1 received after hours in delivering to i his customers. His Worship pointed I out to defendant that he should have I informed the police what the article was that was sold on the day in question.—Dismissed. A Maori boy named Pouroto Kauvvhata and a half-caste named Robert Campbell, both of Manunui, were charged that', on or about the 24th inst., they did break and enter the dwelling of Edward Tekopa Thomson, and steal a purse and money to the value of Is and a watch to the value of 12a 6d, the property of Michael Harris. Constable Robinson, of Taumarunui, conducted the prosecution. His Worship entered a conviction against the two boys, and ordered them to come up for sentence when called upon. Both boys were committed to the Wereroa training farm. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT.

Judgment by default was given in the following cases:—Erickson v. Mahood £5 2s, costs 24s 6d; Green and Colebrook v. Morrow, £3 10s lOd, costs 20s Gd; Cohen v. Ruru Ball and wife £7 10s, costs 44s 8d; Dr Zobel v. Hogg, £2 2s, costs 36s tfd. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Judgment was given as follows: — Green and Colebrook v. Takerangi, £6 7s 6d, order for immediate payment, in default seven days in Auckland gaol. Jack (Waitara) v. Hallmond, £lO 3s Bd, ordered to pay forthwith, in default 14 days' imprisonment, order suspended if debtor pays £2 on 3rd February, and £3 on 3rd of every ensuing month. Jordon v. Bates £29 18s, costs £2l 9s. Dr Zobel v. Taylor £lO 17s 6d, order for immediate payment in default 14 days.

LICENSING PROSECUTIONS. CASES DISMISSED. 1 The new licensing law which has recently come into force caused a great stir in Court circles yesterday. Three charges were preferred against L. D. Nathan and Co, wine and spirit merchants, of Auckland. They were charged that they sent one case of liquor each to three persons at Te Kuiti without furnishing their statements in writing to the Clerk of the Court, the liquor so sent or taken within the area proclaimed by the Government under se-ition 272 of the' Licensing Act, 3908, and incorporated in the amended Act of last November, making the statute applicable to the King Country. There was also a similar charge against the Waipa Brewing Company. Ten charges were also brought against D. J. Cooper, of the Star Hotel, Kihikihi, for supplying liquor to persons in the King Country without furnishing any statement, the names and addresses of the persons ordering the liquor and to whom it was sent. Mr J. B. Hooper, Hamilton, appeared on three similar charges. Messrs Sharpies and Finlay represented all four defendants. Constable Mathews, who prosecuted, said that the cases were merely technical breaches and were brought into Court for the Magistrate's interpretation of the law bearing on the charges. The Clerk of the Court held that the quantity of liquor supplied should be stated in gallons, quarts or pints, in order to enable hii> to make a correct computation in his yearly returns. In the case under review the only information given was as to the number of cases supplied. A case of ale, however, might contain any number of quarts or pints. The Act was quite as new to the Clerks of Court as it was to the vendors of liquor, and therefore his Worship's interpretation of the Act was sought. In reply to Mr Finlay as to whether such returns as mentioned had ever been asked for, the constable stated that he had had no experience of the Act as yet, but be noticed that such returns had been asked for the previous year, and he presumed they would be asked for again. Probably some M.P. would require them. Mr Finlay paid that from what he could gather such returns had only been asked for by persons hokiiug very advanced views on the licensing question. The defence wad that the notifications forwarded by defendants complied in substance, and in fact with the reuuiremeius e.f the Act. At this stage. Air Sharpies submitted that according to sub-paragraph (g) of section 1 iT that a clerk shall not disclose any information unless thai it he made tor the purpose of detecting and the punishing of offenders. That was undoubtedly the intention of the legislature to follow up such persons who were importing liquor into a nolicense district in such large quantities as to lead to the conclusion that it was for illegal purposes. A case of wine "was well understood to contain two gallons. Even had the clerk beer ignorant of this fact it would 11av■; been the easiest possible thing iii tie world for him to have obtained the information from any of the nier- ; chants when it would have been must 1 roaili'y given. The speaker added : that the authorities in exercising the | administration of the Act seemed to make i'. a special duty to hamper the licensee trade as much as possible. It was, harassing the trade ana a matter of vital importance to members of !the trade. Commenting on one of the charges in which a ciergy-

| wine for sacramental purposes he I thought this charge as a matter of ! fact might have been left out. W. M. Warnock', representing L. ; D. Nathan and Co., Ltd.. gave evii donee and stated it was generally un- ■ derstood that a case of wine contained i tvvc> gallons. Mai! his company rei ccived any notification from the Clerk 'fit' the Court as to the new 'require- ! ments they would have only been too pleased to supply the information, lie stated that the no'icy carried out ; in the case under review had obtained with other districts in the past and ! had never been questioned. In I answer to his Worship witness said i that other firms supplied ale in cases j containing seven dozen pints, but | that his company's own bottling contained eight dozen each. In giving judgment, his Worship said the question was a=i to whether the notices complied with the Act; if I they did not then there was the further question as to whether the onimissior. arose from perverseness and a desire to break the law or was a bona fide mistake. The words of the Act were "every person who sells liquor and sends it into a n-j-license district shall furnish to the Clerk of the Court a statement of the nature and quantity of the liquor. It was quite clear, therefore, that it was essential for the quantity of the liquor to be stated. They could not argue that figures were only required by a fanatical statiatian. If the Clerk of the Court combined the business of publican he might be expected to know what brewing terms meant and there would be no trouble but he was only a simpla clerk of the Court. Mr Warnock, in his evidence, had stated that other firms were accustomed to make up cases of seven dozen of ale, while his firm's cases contained eight dozen. This showed that the information was likely to be misleading. It was clear therefore that there had been a breach of the law. He took it, however, that the firm had honestly done their best to comply with the Act and that an error had crept in. They had stated a quantity which they held to be correct and not misleading. They had carried out their duties with thorough bona fides and with reasonable care. It was a matter for regret, said his Worship, that at,, the commencement of the application of this law in the King Country that the authorities were not a little more yielding and accommodating. If, on receipt of the first notice, Msssrs Nathan and Co. had been notified that the description of one ca'ae was misleading, he had not the slightest doubt that the firm woulld have altered it and given the exact quantity. There would have been no difficulty and it would have been supplied. He had to find they had been guilty of a breach but their action had been bona fide and their action had not arisen from any gross carelessness and not from any unwillingness to comply with the Act. He therefore did not propose ot record a conviction, and dismissed the case.

A similar judgment was given in the case against the Waipa Brewing Company. In the cases against D. J. Cooper, his Worship found that defendant had done all he reasonably could to comply with the law. These cases were also dismissed.

It was shown in the cases against J. B. Hooper that defendant had in every case endeavoured to carry out the law. His Worship after hearing evidence, said that in this case the bona fides were most conspicuous, and that it was quite clear that Mr Hooper was a gentleman who was very careful in complying with the Act, in the fact that he always sent his notifications in advance of the liquor. His Worship thought it would have been wiser of the authorities to have issued a few notices before taking these extreme proceedings and summoning these people from their homes at a great expenditure of money and time. The case was dismissed. The first two cases brought against Mr Hooper wtre merely technical breaches in the compilation of the notices to the Clerk of the Court on the 30th of November last, and it was proved to be a day prior to the issue of the Gazette appointing the Clerk of the Court at Te Kuiti to receive notices under the new Act.

HALF-CASTES AND LIQUOR. On the conclusion cf a number of liquor cases under the amended Act at the Maigstrate's Court yesterday, Mr Finlay, who had been acting for a number of defendants, asked his Worship, on behalf of a number of brewers and hotel keepers, it he would be prepared, as chairman of the Licensing Bench, to give them some suggestions in regard to the carrying out of the new Act, relative to supplying half-castse with liquor. Mr Finlay pointed out that there were a good number of half-castes of good eduction, bearing European names and holding responsible positions, and as far as the brewers were concerned, it was almost impossible for them to discriminate between a written order received from a ha!f-easte with a European name, and that of a bona fide European. They would, therefore, like some indication from his Worship as to what he would like them to do, in order to comply wtih the provisions of the Act in such cases. Mr Loughnan said that when a halfcaste, bearing a European name, sent a written order for liquor and the firm receiving the onler was unaware that the writer of the order was a half-caste, then they surely could not be held responsible for supplying him. There were, certainly, risks attached to such sales, but these the vendor of liquor would have to accept.