S.M. Court.

Manawatu Herald, 26 March 1904, Page 2

S.M. Court.

(Before A. D, Esq. S.M.) Fjriday, 25th Mar€ K- ~ CIVIL. M. H. Walker v. F. P. Neem.Claim £8 2s 3d. Judgment by default for amount and costs Us. John Wyeth v. John Broad.— Claim £1 10a. Judgment for amount and costs ss, solicitor’s fee ss. Mr Reads appeared for plaintiff. Austin Bros. v. John and William Mardon. Claim, £92. Judgment Jw default, Court costs £2 Is, solicifce 6s. A. Lafn£ v. Mrs James Ross.— Claim £llos, Judgment by default for amount and cost ß ss. M. H. Walker v. Thomas Mitchell. Claim £1 9s Id. Judgment by default for amount and costs ss, G. H. Scott v. G, Taylor.—Thi* was a claim of £7 11s 6d due on price of a bicycle. Evidence was given that an amount had been paid on account of the bicycle, which had since been returned to plaintiff. The case was adjourned to 29th April. Mr R. Moore appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Reade for defendant. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. Ah Pat v. Frederick Robinson.— Claim £7 5s lid. There was no appearance of debtor, and the Magistrate made an order that the amount be paid at the rate of 20a monthly, in default 7 days’ imprisonment. Mr Moore appeared for plaintiff. T. Westwood and Co. v. James Lamb ess.—Claim £1416a 9d. Evidence was given in this case by debtor, as to bis means to satisfy the debt. The Magistrate decided to adjourn the bearing until 27th May, tb allbw defendant an opportunity of the amount. Mr Beade appeared for plaintiff. a claim For bent. R. jS. Gray v. 0. V. Furrie.— Claim £8 12s, rpnt of paddock since October Ist. Mr R. Monre appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Hankins for defendant. Mr Gray stated that he had pur* ohoaed the land from one O. S. Williams, and informed defendant of the purchase and arranged with him to let it to him for 3s a week. Defendant denied having made any such arrangement, or having had any knowledge that nlaintiff hod purchased the land. Ha hstfformerly rented the paddock from WUliamf^ To Mr Moore—Had not *paid Williams any rent since October. It was not true he was setting up this defence to get out of paying rent to anybody. Knew there was a dispute about the rent but had not written to Williams to know whom he should pay rent to. Did not think it was necessary. Plaintiff was non-saited, Mr Hankins applied for costs, which were refused.

PENSIONS GRANTED. John Procter, £lB, new pension J Dan Toohig, £lB, renewal; S. M. Collins, £lO, renewal; George Bout, £lB, renewal; John Baker, £lB, new pension. TRUANT OASES. The following parents were fined for their children being absent from school: —A Gower, 2s; C. Nelson, 2s, costs 7s; A. R. Pollock, 16s (three charges); J. Lambess, 8s (four charges); T. Chamberlain, coats 14s (two charges); H. Richmond, 4a (two charges); W. Milne, 2s. RIDING WITHOUT LIGHTS. Allan Harper was charged with riding a bicycle without a light, being a contravention of the borough by-laws. Fined ss, coats 7s. Richard Gray and George Langley were both charged with driving vehicles without lights and were fined 5s each, costs 7s. CRIMINAL. William Kinley was charged with wantonly disturbing George Gill, by knocking at his door; and was also charged that being a prohibited person did enter upon licensed premises. Defendant pleaded guilty on both charges, and was fined ss, costs 11s, and witnesses’ expenses 10s. On the second charge a fine of 20s was made by the Magistrate, with costs 7s. LICENSING PROSECUTIONS. CHARGES OF SUNDAY TRADING AND ILLICIT SALES. John Thomas Levett was charged with having on the 20th March permitted liquor sold to be consumed on licensed premises by others than bona fide travellers, the said 20th day of March being a Sunday, a day on which licensed premises are directed bylaw to be closed. The defendant was also charged with having kept open the premises of the Manawatu Hotel for the sale of liquor on the 20th day of March, 1904, being a Sunday, a day on whichcensed premises are directed by law be closed.

Sergeant Stagpoole prosecuted, and Mi R. Moore appeared for defendant, and pleaded “ not guilty ” on both charges. Sergeant Stagpoole said that on the Sunday in question at about half-past eight Constables Forster and Lander went into the Manawatu Hotel by the back, They went into the bar parlor.

and found the lower half of the door Into the bar open, and the slide down. The Parlor was in darkness. Constable Forster struck a light. There were three the bar parlour. One said boarding in the hotel, and £heXti® r t wo that they were residents ■of the tOv IJ * , -Cu being questioned they stated what drinks they had had, and that the- been served by Mrs Levett.

Constable Forster gave evidence v that on the evening of the 30th he wished the Manawatu Hotel and enter*.- the lar parlor. He saw that the lower half of the door into the bar was open, but the slide down. He struck a match and saw three men with glasses of liquor. One of the men was Lee. Witness asked him what he had, and be said lemonade and port wine. He asked “ who shouted ?” and one of ihe others—Aubne—said “ I did.” Immediately after striking the match someone in the bar shut the |bar door. The men finished their drinks, and witness smelt the glasses to satisfy himself what the glasses had contained. There was a light in the bar, but the bar parlor was in darkness. There were three men in the passage when witness entered, but only one when he went out,,

Thomas Aub /fle> flaxmill hand, gave evidence that. be frequently came into Foxton on Saturday night, and went out again, on Sunday afternoon. He came l aS j; Saturday afternoon, and staged at the Manawatu Hotel. He <ifd not have any tea, but went to bed shortly before shutting up time, The □ext day he had no breakfast and took dinner at a friend’s bouse, He had two friends whom he picked up down the street about eiip’nt o’clock. He was going back to '<he hotel to get his bed again and frjok them up to give them a drink. V/hen he left the hotel in the morning be did not intend, to go to He went straight to the hotel w’den he met (he two friends and knocked at the back door. Someone asked who was there, and witness said “ Aubne.” The door was then opened, and the three went in. Witness saw Mrs Levett and a number of constant boarder* in the passage. Witness asked Mrs Levett if she would let them have three drinks before he went upstairs to bed. She was very doubtful, and witness told her they were travellers who bad come a distance. > She then asked who they were, and witness said they were two of his friends, and that one came from Motoa and the other from Wirokino. She then gave him the drinks. They were not paid for. He got them on credit. There was a light in the passage, but not in the bar parlor. Witness knew Lee well, but very little about Pope, He received the drinks from Mrs Levett, and gave them into the others’ hands. Witness had his drink in his hand when the police came in. The constable struck a match. Witness asked Mrs Levett to trust him for the drinks. He had a few drinks on the Saturday, but not on Sunday. He told them on Saturday night that he wanted a h,ed on SuntV'y. Had only w ith MrMahout the case l^ s t night. He mwa drink then. H; a( j ge en Mr Levett on the Sunday night after the constable’s visit and then arranged to take a bed.

To Mr Mor fe _jt wag on Sunday evening h e t oo i c a bed. When he asked ff'jf the drinks Mrs Levett would n ot Supply him until witness satisfied b fjt that he was treating the other two as his triends, and that they were travellers. He told her where they came from. , Ernest Pope gave evidence that he had seen the previous witness on Sunday evening. Had not met him before. Told him he (witness) was tired. Aubne then said: “Come round to Levett’s and I will see if I can get a drink." Understood he was going to bed there, jfvubne knocked at the door and someone asked who was there. Aubne said: " A boarder with two travellers,” They asked where witness had come from. He said »* from Walden’s,” and the other man said from Symons’ mill. Aubne said nothing* Mrs Levett asked what they ware going to have, and then handed them the drinks. The drinks were not paid for. _ . ~ . To the Magistrate; I came in that evening about 2 o’clock. I thought it we were not travellers we would not get the drinks. Constable Lander also gave evidence. , This closed the case for the proseCU Mr Moore said he proposed to call, the evidence of the defendant if necessary to prove that Aubne was a lodger, and therefore entitled to obtain drink for himself and his friends. But apart from this it was clear from the evidence that Mrs Levett had taken all necessary precautions to ascertain whether Pope and Lee were bona fide travellers, and they had satisfied her that they were. The first information charged the defendant with having a • lowed liquor to be consumed by Pope and Lee, who were alleged not to be bona fide travellers. No mention was made of Aubne. _ His Worship here said that to support the charge it was necessary to show that the liquor had been purchased before the hours of closing and consumed afterwards. This had not been done. He did not think he could convict on the first charge. Mr Moore resuming on the second charge, said that if the sale was lawful, the accused was entitled to keep the premises open during the sale. Moreover, it must be shown m the words of the Act that the premises were kept open for the sale of liquor. Some door had to be left open to allow the boarders to go in and out. It could not be said that this was done for the purpose interposed that if the premises were left open in such a way that a discreet person could obta n liquor, it was a keeping open within .file meaning of the Statute. The whole question turned on whether the -Site was lawful in consequem:e of ff;h.Sfasot^v.d^c| e shouM b \&d h evidence that Aubne had engaged a on Saturday night. On Sunday morning he saw Aubne who said he had had breakfast and w° uld require a bed

again that night. To Sergeant Stagpoole : I was away when the drinks were served. I left the keys in the bar. Mrs Levett gave evidence that Aubne stayed at the hotel on Saturday night and had engaged a room for Sunday on Saturday morning. When Aubne asked for the drinks she would not supply them until satisfied who his companions were and where they had come from. She knew Aubne was a boarder.

To Sergeant Stagpoole : There was a light in the bar. There was no light in the bar parlour because I did not want anyone else to come in.

Mr Mooi'e submitted that it was clear from the evidence that Aubne was a lodger, and that Mrs Levett knew this when she supplied him with drinks. The evidence of Aubne in this respect was contradicted by both the witnesses for the defence, and the accused should have the benefit of the doubt. Further, Mrs Levett had taken all reasonable precautions to ascertain whether Lee and Pope were travellers, and even though they may not have been so in reality they had satisfied her that they were. On the authority of Hammond v. Hobson this was a sufficient justification for the sale, and defendant could not be convicted.

Sergeant Stagpoole submitted that there was not sufficient evidence that Aubne was a lodger. The defendant and his wife gave contradictory evidence on this point, which could not, therefore, be relied on. His Worship said he did not think the defence that Pope and Lee were bona fide travellers could be sustained ; but he thought defendant had sufficient grounds lor looking on Aubne as a lodger, and on that ground both chargas would be dismissed.