Magistrate's Court, foxcon.

Manawatu Herald, 2 May 1896, Page 3

Magistrate's Court, foxcon.

(Before R. L. Stanford, E.^., 8.M.) ThTJRSDAY, ApBIC 80. Police v. William Wells.—Defendant was charged with being drunk on the - Shannon racecourse on 10th April. Defendant pleaded guilty. Fined sa ; coats 93 or 24 hours' imprison* merit. jpoliw v. William Wells. — fiefend4WLartfs charged with bifng a prohibited person within a district in which the prohibition order is in force against him on lOtb April. Defendant pleaded not guiltf. Constable Gillespie told him on the morning of the races he had no j -light at the booth. He went there taain, in fact got helplessly drank. He had wherTserved with summons admitted he Was drank and that the " boobies " had given him it. Id reply to defendant Constable Qilleipie Mid he did not see liquor given him, Def»adit»ft said he was at work on the oonr w itid people ashed him to have diiiUSt tie thought there was no harm in gottfng dink on Ihe coarse though he kn«w he mast not get it at the public houses. Convicted and fined £5 and costs, lie. The defendant was allowed let en days to pay the amount in* Police v. E. T. Snlythe.— Defecd* ml Was charged that he did establish a lottery by which a prize, to wit> a mare and foal, valued at 46 was thrown or competed for by the throwing of dice. Defendant pleaded guilty. The B.M. said he bad made himself liable to a penalty not exceeding 4200, and for a second/ offence to a fine and 6 months imprisonment. He viould be convicted and fined 45 and costs, 21s, and 2 witnesses, 84s Defendant asked for fime, two months. ; The B.M. said he could not allow so long as that. 'He would give 14 days to pay the amount in. Police v v Frederick R. Young.— Defendant was charged that be did act as agent ior one Wirima Eperaima(and in the second charge for oneWi Hemera), is purchasing a ticket in connection with the work* ing of a totalisator ai Hastings, tile •aid Frederick B. Young not being an authorised agent for a racing club licensed to use the same. Mr Hankins appeared for defend* anfc. Defendant pleaded guilty. Mr Han kins' admitted that two friends had asked defendant to put a pound on Fiying Shot for them, and he had done so Though defendant had technically committed a breach of the Act is wa« in no manner as (hat contemplated by the Act in working a•• To',e Shop " He made nothing out of the transaction. He would plead guilty also to the jf£ond information. M^onstftble GH lei pie said he was entitled to place the full facts of the case before the Court. The Natives told him that Young had asked Natives for a pound each to pat on a certain race which they did and when the races were over the Natives were told that the race they expected the money had been pat on . bad not been, bat pat on another race. The B.M. Mid be did not think ihe Act bore tbe interpretation suggested by Mr Hankins. He thought Hie Act went as far as were a party oo' a race stand directed one of their party to pat their money on a race committed a breach and laid him open to a penalty of 420 and it was intended to stop betting on the totalisator by agent as elsewhere. He did not think it a case for a heavy penalty. Defendant wae fined 41 on etch charge and costs 7s each, 2 witnesses 10slin each case, interpreter's fee, 10s 6d in each case. Police v. Michael Moyniban. — Defendant was charged with being a licensed person selling liquors on the Shannon racecourse did neglect to have painted or fixed on the, premises the word " licensed " after his name. Mr Hankins appeared for defend ant and pleaded guilty if it was an offence under the Act. The constable said similar offences had been dealt with in this court. Fined 08, and costs 155. , Polio*' v. Michael Moynihan,Defendant was charged with a knowledge that William Wells of Shannon was a prohibited peraon , under flection 167 of the LtVnsing Ait, 1881. did sell ltqaor to the said William Wells. Mr Hankins appeared for defendant and pleaded pot guilty. Constable Gilleapie deposed tbat ill order was made on Btb August agiinat William Welts. He p,ut the Gourt'a i eoord book in ac evidence of the order. He bad also served defendant with a copy of the order. William Wells deposed that a prohibition order was out against him. Had never seen the order, had agreed to its being made. Was at the Shannon races ; Moyniban bad a booth there ; saw him at the races, but not in the booth ; do not know who served in the booth; got the liquor outside the booth; would swear had not Iquor to drink in tbe booth ; had nothing stronger than beer ; acknowledged he w.B the worse AH'liquor ; the iiqaor came over theeoamer. i

Cu.,-.... . < i:w..-.:j)ij (ieposeti iil'iS V l . k;.v '"•)',• certain thai Jasb Tineas got, drunk with liquor obtained from Moynihan's booth. Had seen Wolls come out of tbe tent which was used for refreshments, which had an opening to the liquor booth. Told one mau in tbe booth tbat Wells had no burliness thero. To Mr Ha^kica; Did not are ; Moyoihan or hia servants supply i Well.*- with liquor. Mr Hankins urged that no prohibition bad been proved against Wells. To do so the whole ord.-r should have been set out. Tbe book was simply a record of the Court proceedings. The record of Btb August had no reference even to the Statute* He would ask whether there wag any evidence whether defendant or any of his servants did aeli liqnor, as he was charged. There was nothing before the Court which would justify a conviction. The B.M. eaid be could not go so far it to lay there was no case, fie had sworn evidence that the prohibition order bad been made proper/y. i Michael Moyoihan deposed he held a conditional license for the Shannon racccooiae j had a Jucamenf in hJ3 bar rct.-rrmg io Wells} did nob serve him with any liquor. By the constable : did not attend to the booth that &»f. Could not swear that his ssrvants'did not supply Wells. By 8.M. : Saw Wells on the grouild. He was drunk at the time. Alter bis attention ttas drawn to Wells by the constable, told his servants not to supply him. The S.M. was satisfied that Wells is a prohibited person. The difficulty in all these cases is one met With here that Wells was in booth and also outside and was sober in morning and drank in the afternoon. He was sure tbe liquor came from the bar. He would not buy the liquor himself but probably got some third person to get the drink for him*. TbJ»is probably what has happened. Under these circumstances Moyni* ban could flot be said to have sold liquor knowingly to Wells. Probably it has escaped tbe observation of Mojnihan and his servants and the case should be dismissed.