MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3776, 22 October 1907, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

[Before Mr A. D. Thompson, S.M.]

BREACH OF THE LICENSING ACT, S. J. Hickson was charged with permitting drunkenness upbn his licensed premises, he being the Licensee of the Foxton Family Hotel. Evidence was given by Constables Woods and Dickson that on Monday, 16th. Sept, they were near defendant’s hotel shortly after 10 p.m., when they saw a man apparently drunk being taken away from the back of the hotel. They went into the hotel, and saw another man very drunk, and leaning against the wall. They spoke to defendant, and asked him why he allowed the man to remain there in that condition, and defendant said he had asked him to go, and he refused. Defendant then took Wright and put him outside, and he was taken home by the billiard saloon keeper. This was at 15 or 20 minutes past ten. For the defence Wright gave evidence that he went to the hotel about a quarter to ten to see someone, and went into the diningroom. He did not go to the bar and what liquor he had got had been procured before he went into the hotel. Someone told him about ten o’clock that it was time to go, and he then went out into .the passage! He remembered speaking to the constable and Hickson and being taken out. That was the only time he saw Hickson that evening-

The, defendant stated that he had been in the bar from about half past nine to fen that evening. He saw nothing of Wright and did not know he was in the hotel. At ten o’clock he shut up the bar, and then saw Wright coming o«t in the passage. He told him to go out, but he did not go. He let the others out, and then the police came in and Saw Wright, who had gone into the sitting-room. The police asked him why he had allowed Wright to be there in that condition, and witness replied that he had asked him to go out, and he would not. Witness then put him out. Wright had never been in the bar that evening. He did not consider Wright was extra drunk. The Magistrate said that according to defendant’s evidence, he had seen Wright in the .hotel at ten o’clock, and yet he did not put him out until a quarter past ten, and after the police arrived, and besides that had allowed this man to remain on the premises while he put others out. Defendant would be convicted and fined costs ys, and his license endorsed. FISHING PROSECUTIONS. Dimitri Lazaretti was charged on tie information of the Inspector of Fisheries with having used a» appliance formed of pieces of metal and other substances attached to a line placed in the Manawatu River for turning white-bait into a net. Evidence was .given by Ernest Howan, ranger, as to the nature of. the instrument used, and its effect, in preventing white-bait from getting up the river. Cross-ex-amined ; —appliance used was not a “jigger,” which was a line with pieces of tin attached to it used for frightening fish into the required direction. The appliance in question was- a net used for drafting the fish into a hand-net. Witness denied having used a similar contrivance himself, or using other nets in a manner contrary to the regulations. Defendant's counsel contended that the information was substantially a charge for using a ‘ ‘ jigger, ’ ’ but the prosecution admitted this instrument had not been used by the defendant. It was no doubt intended to charge defendant with using a contrivance for wholly preventing the fish from moving up the river, which was prohibited by the same regulation which made the ‘ ‘ jigger ” unlawful. But even if the proceedings could be amended so, as the defendant with using a contrivance for preventing the movement of the fish up the river it could be shown that the appliance in question (a net about 30 feet long supported by corks on one side and weighted by lead on the other) did not come within the prohibition of the regulations, because it could not wholly prevent the fish even on one side of the river from moving up the river. Large, numbers could gat round the. end of the net, and in order to wholly prevent fish going up the river the net would have to be extended right across the river. The Magistrate said he agreed with this view. He could not on the facts convict the defendant of either of- these offences, but he suggested that the proceedings be amended so as to charge defendant with using a net having a wider opening than that allowed by the regulations. Defendant’s counsel said he did not think it would be fair to the defendant to consent to this. Nets having a larger opening than that allowed by the regulations for the Wellington Province appeared from the evidence which had been given, to be in common use, and it was only fair that the defendant in common with other fishermen, should before action was taken have reasonable warning that this appliance was illegal if such was the case. In any case it was open to question whether the appliance used was in contravention of the regulation against the size of the opening allowed for whitebait nets. The case was accordingly dismissed without prejudice to an action being taken for breach of regulation 26. Dimitri Lazaretti, a very harmless looking Greek, was further charged with obstructing the Ranger, * Ernest Howan, in the performance of his duties. The facts alleged were that on Howan seizing defendant’s net, which he

claimed the right to do as ranger on the ground that the net was contrary to the regulations, defendant endeavoured to prevent him. Howan produced his appointment as ranger.

The Magistrate pointed out that this appointment was made under “ The Fisheries Conservation Act, 1884,” whereas the facts alleged were not made an offence under the Act of 1884. Under “The Sea Fisheries Act, 1894,’’ the ranger had certain powers to seize illegal appliances, but it did not appear he was appointed a ranger under that Act, which was quite independent of the Act of 1884. Unless it could be shown that the enactment under which Howan was appointed ranger also gave him power to seize the net in question, and in addition made it unlawful to obstruct him in doing so, he did not see how the Court could Convict. As this could not be shown, the case would be dismissed. assault. Dimitri Lazaretti charged Ernest Howan with having assaulted him on the 10th iust. Evidence was given by James Senior that he saw Howan go up to Lazaretti, seize his net, and strike him in the face with his fist. He also heard defendant using violent and abusive language to Lazaretti. Corroborative evidence was given by Charles Dransfield and the informant, Lazaretti. Defendant gave evidence to the effect that when he seized the net Lazaretti got him by the shoulder and attempted to push him into the river. Evidence to the same effect was given by W.

Young. The Magistrate said he was satisfied an assault had been committed, and fined defendant ios, witnesses’ expenses Bs, solicitor’s fee ns. MOHOKEY V. EDWARDS.

Claim by George Mohokey against Arthur Edwards of Moutoa for £3 for the one third share of the plaintiff in 16 pigs. Evidence was given by Mohokey that the pigs in question were the increase of certain pigs which had been delivered by Edwards to him and one Powell under a bailment by the terms of which plaintiff and I Powell were entitled to sell the pigs and divide the proceeds with Edwards. The bailment provided for termination of the agreement on three months’ notice. Mohokey had given notice and the 16 pigs remained on the premises after the expiry of the notice. The original bailment had been modified by an agreement under which Mohokey and Powell purchased from Edwards the pigs from which the ones in question were descended. Evidence was given by Fred. Gardner and Allred Withers as to the pigs having been on the same premises since the termination of the agreement and as to their value. Defendant stated that under the bailment the pigs remained his property as bailor, but the plaintiff and Powell were at liberty to sell them and divide the proceeds with him. They had never purchased any pigs from him as stated hy Mohokey. When Mohokey left after terminating the agreement by three months’ notice he made no claim for the unsold pigs. He had plenty of time to sell them if had desired after giving notice and before its expiry. Under the agreement all the pigs remained his property and if any 7 were unsold on the termination of / the bailment he was entit.ed to retake possession of them. E. H. Powell gave corroborative evidence. The Magistrate said that he was satisfied that the defendant’s view of the matter was correct. The pigs were only bailed, and the plaintiff chose to terminate the agreement before the pigs in question were sold, and therefore could not claim anything for them under the agreement. Judgment for defendant with as costs and 21s solicitor’s fee. VANKO V. HOLLAND. Claim £3 10s jd for goods supplied. Defendant admitted 4s lid of this amount and paid this into Court with 15s costs. He denied receiving the balance of the goods claimed. Evidence was given by F. Yanko and Thomas Collins, the latter stating that he had seen Holland served with the 'l goods. Defendant gave evidence L that he had not received any of the disputed items, amounting to £1 5s Bd. The Magistrate in giving his decision allowed the defendant 9s off the disputed items and gave judgment for plaintiff for 16s 8d in addition to the amount paid into Court together with 3s further costs. UNDEFENDED CASES. George Wright pleaded, guilty to being on the licensed premises of the Foxton Family Hotel after closing hours on the 16th inst., and was fined 10s, costs 7s. CIVIE CASES. Lye Moon and Co. v. Margaret Reid, judgment for £lO 3s 2d, costs 15s, solicitor’s fee 15s 6d. A. R. Osborne v. Alfred and Amy Morgan, his wife, judgment for £2 8s qd, costs Bs, solicitor’s fee ss. BREACH OF SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT. Marie Hamer was charged, on the information of the Inspector of Factories, with keeping her shop open after 10 o’clock on . Saturday, 28th September, in ‘ breach of the regulations gazetted in pursuance of a, requisition by the majority of the occupiers of shops in the borough. Defendant’s counsel entered a formal plea of “ not guilty/” and explained that on the occasion in question the shop had been closed and locked up promptly at 10 o’clock. Shortly afterwards, before the lights were put out, it began to rain heavily, and a customer who had been there before ten o’clock, . > knocked at the/door and asked for

the loan of an overcoat to go home in. Defendant went into the back of the house to get an overcoat and left the door open till she returned. The police came along in the interval and saw the man in the shop. The Magistrate said he would take this explanation into account. It was obviously an accidental oversight on the defendant’s part. She should have kept the door closed while she was getting the coat, and in any case could have let the man out by the side door. A technical breach of the Act had been committed, but under the circumstances only a nominal fine of 5s would be •inflicted, with 7s costs, and 21s fee for Inspector’s solicitor.