MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1037, 31 August 1911, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magristrate’s Court was held before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., yesterday. SERVING A PROHIBITED PERSON WITH LIQUOR. William F. Gray, licensee of the Post Office Hotel, Foxton, was charged by the police with, on August 19th suppling one, Horace J. Richards, a person against whom a prohibition order was in force, with liquor. The defendant pleaded not guilty and was defended by Mr Moore, Constable Woods conducted the case on behalf of the police. Mr Moore, in opening, said the facts of the case were admitted. Richards went into the hotel and asked for the liquor and defendant served him. At the time the defendant had no knowledge that Richards was the man named in the prohibition order. Under the section of the Act dealing with this offence it appeared that it was sufficient defence if the defendant could show the Court that he did not know the man and - did not have reasonable opportunity of knowing him. Richards was employed in his (counsel’s) office, and during the time he had been there Mr Gray had had no dealings with the office and consequently had no opportunity of knowing him through any business transactions. Further, he had never spoken to the man. There were always plenty of strangers about Foxton and seeing Richards for the first time the defendant would naturally take him for a stranger. Of course Mr Gray could have come to his office and seen Richards, but he contended it would not be reasonable to expect that to be done. It was not a licensee’s duty to go and see all the persons who were prohibited. It was only reasonable for a licensee to expect that a man who had a prohibition order against him would not go into an hotel and ask for liquor. A licensee could not be expected to ask each customer whom he did not know personally whether he was prohibited or not. Richards had not been in Foxton very long and defendant had no reasonable opportunity of knowing him. Counsel said he was perfectly satisfied that Mr Gray didn't, know Richards and had no reasonable opportunity of knowing him. Richards had been served openly in full view of the street and when questioned by the constable Mr Gray had been quite open about the whole matter. William F. Gray, the defendant, slated in evidence that between eight and nine o’clock on August 19th a man, whom he now knew to be Richards, came into his hotel and asked for a bottle of whisky. Witness saw his wife get the whisky and serve him. Previous to then witness had never seen the man. A few minutes afterwards Constable Woods came in and asked witness if he served Richards. Witness replied that he did not know Richards. The constable described the man and the clothes he was wearing and witness then told him he had been served with a bottle of whisky. The constable asked if he knew that he was prohibited and witness replied that he did not. When Richards purchased the bottle of whisky witness asked the barman who he was and he replied that he did not know and that the man was in the night before and got a bottle of port wine. To the police : Witness said that he was notified early in May that a law clerk named Horace J. Richards had been prohibited. Richards never called on him in connection with the meeting of the Licensing Bench at Marton. Previous to his getting the bottle of whisky witness had never seen the man.

The Magistrate said he was willing to assume that defendant did not know this man Richards, but it seemed to him that he ought to have known him, as he had reasonable means of finding out who he was- This would have been a very easy matter. He was satisfied that defendant did not really know the man or he wouldn’t have served him. The Act, however, threw on the licensee the duty of finding out who a manjwas. Defendant would be convicted and fined 40s with costs 7s, but his license would not be endorsed. PROCURING LIQUOR WHILST PROHIBITED. Horace J. Richards charged with procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order, pleaded guilty and was fined 10s with 7s costs. A. Jenks was fined 10s, and 7s costs, for obtaining liquor during the carrency of a prohibition order. C. McArtney, for supplying liquor to the above person, was fined 20s and 7s costs. MAINTENANCE CASE. Herbert Doughty, who did not appear, was charged with failing to maintain his three children, at present inmates of an Industrial School. The Magistrate made an order for the payment of 53 per week for each child. UNDEFENDED CASE. Judgment for plaintiff was entered up in the undefended civil case Easton and Co., v. M. Connelly, claim ,£43 os xid, with costs £* 14s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. Easton aud Co. (Mr Moore) proceeded against Charles Lennox on a judgment summons to recover the sum of 6s. The plaintiffs alleged that the debt was fraudulently incurred by the defendant selling a horse belonging to plaintiffs whilst on loan to the defendant.

The judgment debtor, Charles Lennox, gave evidence to the effect that he bought the horse in question for £l7 but had paid nothing. When he purchased the horse plaintiff had told him that he could pay for it when he liked. He hadn’t had the money to pay for it since. He sold the horse and a set of harness for 1 os. At that time he paid plaintiffs on account. His account at the time was about £6O including the horse. William Adiu stated that Lennox informed him that he had purchased the horse, and asked him to go and get it from Easton. When he got it Sid Easton told him that Lennox had bought it. William Drummond also gave evidence to the effect that he was present when Easton sold the horse to Lennox. No money was paid at the time. The Magistrate said he was not satisfied on the evidence that there was not a sale and refused to make an order.