MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1092, 11 January 1912, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held before Mr A. D. Thomson, S.M., yesterday morning, when the following cases were dealt with : breach of prohibition order. Henry O’Donnell, a prohibited person, was charged with being found on licensed premises on Abe — 27th ultimo. * It appears that defendant had gone to Palmerston on the day in question, and whilst the train was at Longburn, had gone into the Junction Hotel and procured a bottle ot beer, and was seen coming out by Constable Sweeney.

Defendant did not appear, but put in a written plea of guilty, and was convicted and fined 10s, with 7s costs.

threatening behaviour. Henry Clark pleaded not guilty to a charge of using threatening behaviour in a public place on November 18th.

Evidence for the prosecution was given by Constable Sweeney, who stated that at about 10 o’clock on the night in question he was standing near the Family Hotel talking to a man named William Harper on the prohibition question, Clark and his brother Charles were standing close by, and apparently overheard the conversation, as the defendant said to witness: “It’s all the same whether prohibition is carried or not, you would run a man in whether he was drunk or sober.” Charles Clark then said, “ What became ot the I had in my pocket when you arrested me ?” Witness asked what he meant by that remark, and defendant said, “ Ob, you know very well; there were only two of you in it, and one or the other must have got it.” Witness told him he would have to pay for making those remarks, and defendant replied that he could pay for- any remarks he might make. William Harper, called by the police, said that he remembered being present when Constable Sweeney was talking to a man named Den Carter. The Clark brothers came along shortly afterwards. Witness heard Constable Sweeney say to Charles Clark, “ Don’t you think it is tune you were home?” and he replied, “ I’ll go home when I think fit.” Witness then said to Len Carter, “ I think there is going to be an argument; we’ll go away.” He then left.

In reply to Constable Woods, witness said that when speaking to him (Woods) the following Saturday he did not say he thought Clark was a fool for kicking up a row over nothing until alter Constable Woods had told him that Clark had kicked up a row. The Magistrate said that on the evidence the charge should be one of insulting language, ret threatening behaviour, and he amended the charge occordingly, to which defendant still pleaded not guilty.

The defendant made a statement. and attributed the charge to ill-feeling against him on the part of the police. He said that when his brother Charles had been arrested he had bailed him ont the rollovving morning, and had found him terribly knocked about and covered in blood. He then said thiugs to the police that he knew he should not have said. Constable Woods had then said, ” There’s plenty of time lor you.” Subsequently at the Palmerston Races, witness and another man were making up a ticket on a horse when Constable Sweeney came up and said, “ Look here, Sandy, you keep your money in your pocket; don’t bet with him.” Defendant saia he did not know much about the charge brought against him. He certainly never made use of the remarks that Constable Sweeney said he did. He never mentioned anything about the £3 being lost, but believed his brother did.

George Harper stated that on the night ot November 18th, he heard Constable Sweeney tell Chatles Clark that it was time he was home, and Clark said he would please himself. Charles Clark also said that the police took £3 off him. He did not hear defendant say anything at all. Charles Clark, in evidence, staled that it was he who said that Constable Sweeney took of his money, and not his brother. At the time he was arrested he had £l xys in cash, and £3 of this was never accounted for. It was witness who did the talking on the night ot November 18th, and his brother (defendant) did not say anything. The Magistrate said he was satisfied that defendant did say something about the which implied a dishonest act on the part of the police, and that constituted insulting language. Delendant was convicted and fined 20s, with costs 20s. CIVII, CASKS. Judgment lor plaintiffs was entered up in the following undefended civil cases ; —G. kt. Stiles v. Herston Frankland, claim £1 6s 6d, costs 3s ; G. T. Woodroole v. VV. Coker, /jb xßs 6d, costs 30s 6d; G. T. Woodroote v. O. Dawson, £b 14s 2d, costs 23s 6d, and Lvans Bros. v. H. Haicrow, £1 7s, costs 7s.