HEAVY FINE FOR “SHOUTING.”

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1626, 19 October 1916, Page 3

HEAVY FINE FOR “SHOUTING.”

Rotorua, Del. 17. In the Magistrate’s Court, to-day, before Mr Dyer, S.M., a Native named Taupopoki was fined £2O and costs for a breach of the anli“shoiil ing" regulations. There wore some peculiar features about a ease under the anii“sbouting" regulations beard at Palmerston North on Monday. Agnes Hart, a barmaid in the Imperial Hotel, was charged that, on 301 h September she “did do an act which amounted to treating within the meaning of the War Regulations Act, 1010." She pleaded not guilty. In outlining the case for the prosecution, Sub-Inspector Marsack said that on the date named Mr P. Kerrigan, a farmer, of Asbbnrsl, in company with a Mr Kendall, visited the Imperial Hotel, Drinks were supplied, and each paid for bis own. Kerrigan was supplied with a tenshilling note in bis change, and requested that this be changed into silver. The barmaid said she could not give change unless a sale was registered. Two other men came into the bar, and the barmaid supplied them with two drinks and deducted Is from the 10s note and handed Mr Kerrigan bade Os, Mr Kerrigan took except ion to this and informed the police. Mr H. R. Cooper, for the defence, contended that there was no evidence to show that -defendant, was guilty of treating. There might have been a mistake in the change, but that was quite a different thing to treating. Counsel considered the ease appeared to be one of the meanest and most contemptible that bad ever been brought before this Court before a Magistrate. Mr Boynton, S.M.: “1 don’t know." Counsel said the case was a serious one, because if the defendant was found guilty it meant that she was barred from earning her living for six months. Counsel went on to say that if there was any treating it was done by Kerrigan himself. There was absolutely no proof that the defendant had treated anyone, and the ace should be dismissed. His Worship said there was no doubt that Kerrigan’s money had been used. He would dismiss the information without prejudice, and the police could proceed with another information under clause 5 of the Regulations.