HAVELOCK

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVII, Issue 33, 7 February 1913, Page 7

HAVELOCK

[iTROM OUB COERESPONDENT.T Thursday MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

At the Magistrate's Court -yesterday, before Mr F. 08. Loughnan, S.M., the following cases were dealt with:—

A first offender was charged with drunkenness. Several witnesses were brought forward by the accused, who swore that he was not drunk. Constables Mathieson and Coombes affirmed that the accused had been lying on the racecourse asleep and intoxicated.—A fine of 5s was imposed with costs.

Two men, McMahon and Sullivan, ■were each fined, with costs, on a charge of committing a breach of the peace.

A. Thompson was charged1 with_ using threatening language to; Constable Mathieson, calculated to cause a breach of the peace. The constable stated that the accused had threatened to "do for him" at a .favorable opportunity, and had refused to give the police his Mine when asked. W. ■i*. Orsmariwas called, and stated that the constable asked him for the accused s name ; and the accused told nim not to give it. The witness replied that he would have to, and the accused then gave his name himself. lie had not heard the accused Use. any threatening language. The accused, in his evidence, -said that the constable said he would thrash him, and that had made him angry. The magistrate dismissed the case on the ground •or insufficient evidence.

NOXIOUS WEEDS

I<or allowing weeds to grow on their properties the following weie fined :— & aeiwSfc,' !£l -and'costs; E. H. ?* ratf°, rf £20, but to be reduced to lUs it cleared in two months- W Murray, £1 l s and costs; Jas Elliott!' *£. Is ; an« costs. In the case of the i^lorus Road Board the summons was made out to the secretai-y, and the magistrate refused to accept it in his name. He advised the Inspector to nave part of the clearing done and charge the Road Board for the work aad then proceed with a test case, a« there seemed to be some diversity of opinion as to who was responsible for the noxious weeds. The Havelock Harbor Board proceeded against G. McNabb for breach v ff^ }af% c plaintiffs stated that the defendant had refused to par £? l^ nse «f £1 1«, which the »oard were emjpowered to levy on, all Jaunehes carrying passengers. The defendant stated that he had 'already paid a license to the Government, and produced his certificate of such The magistrate awarded the case to the Board and stated that the Government fee was paid for a survey certificate, and had no connection with the tK^^St* 511"! 6? **y Harbor ; Boards. He quoted from the Act and irJ^ ri°l ?° a# by-laws > in which it stated distinctly that the survey certificate licensed a launch to ply for hire on paying the Harbor Board charges. The defendant was ordered to pay costs. Judgment was given for the plaintins m the following debt cases:—W H Orsman v. J. Templeman, £20 16s Id and costs; Brownlee and Co. v. J Templeman, £14 13s lOd and costs • j' Newman v J Templeman, judgment Q costs; Price and Son v! A. Minns, w\? S ?U# oosts ' J- Newman v. L nail, judgment and costs; W H Orsman v. F. Templeman, £25 3s' 7d and costs. COTTAGE HOSPITAL COMMITTEE. A meeting of the above Committee was held on Wednesday. There were present: Messrs W. Price (chairman), J. Elliott, H. M. Reader W H Smith, W. Pickering, W. H. Buckman, and Dr Williams. The chairman reported that the following accounts had been paid in •— Clarence Eaton £2 4s, J. D McArthur £1, Robert Mills £1. The chairman read a letter from the wairau Hospital Board authorising the expenditure of £7 on an iron gate and a mangle. A letter was also received from the Board, regarding an account due by Mr bhaw, for which notice of payment on 20th December had been received. The only matter iv connection with this account was the Board's receipt- for 5,5 12s paid by Mr Shaw on the 6th December. The matter was ordered to be inquired into. Dr Williams reported that the only case in the Hospital during January was that vof Margaret Climo, dischargd as convalescent o.n the Ist February. The Chairman stated that the matron of the Cottage Hospital had closet! the building and had gone to

Blenheim at the order of the Hospital Board, and that she had stated

her intention, to apply for leave of absence for a holiday whilst there. The Board's action in instructing the nurse to close the building without having advised the local Committee of its intention was strongly commented on, and it was decided to write protesting against what had been done