MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2336, 1 October 1921, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

MONTHLY SITTING

The ordinary monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday, before Mr J. L. Stout, S.M.

BY-LAW CASES,

Roland Wills, charged with riding a bicycle without a light, in Johnston Street, on August 10th, was lined ss, with costs 7s.

William Aldridge, charged with riding a bicycle on the footpath in Union Street, on August 20th, was fined ss, with costs 7s. Alexander Watson, charged with grazing a horse on the roadway in Union Street, was fined 10s, with 7s costs.

MILITARY OFFENCE,

Alfred O'Reilly was charged by the Defence Department with failing to pay a fine imposed on him for inattention while on parade.

Evidence was produced that defendant had paid the fine, but not until a summons had been served on him.

The Magistrate ordered defendant to pay court costs amounting to 7s, and said that the fine should have been paid at once, and not left until a summons was issued. ILLEGALLY ON LICENSED PREMISES.

William Healey was charged by the police with being illegally on the licensed premises of the Family Hotel.

Defendant, who pleaded not guilty, asked for an adjournment, as his witnesses were working on “perishable goods,” and were unable to attend the Court. The adjournment was not. granted. Constable Owen, in evidence, stated that at between 7.30 and 8 pan. on August 29th, lie visited the premises of the Family Hotel. He entered by (lie front door, and saw defendant come out of the commercial room, and make his way towards the bar. The bar was closed, but there was someone in there. Defendant’s two brothers were in the commercial room. They were boarders at the hotel. t / William Healey stated that sometime ago his three brothers were baching in town, but after a while two of them decided to board at the Family Hotel. The third came round to his (defendant’s) house and asked defendant if lie would board him, as he did not want to board at the hotel. It was decided lliat defendant would take him, provided that defendant got the crockery and blankets belonging to the elder brother, which were at the bach. Defendant and his brother wenl to the hotel to see about the mailer. When there on Ibis errand I he police arrived. Constable Owen asked defendant if he was aware that his brothers were only allowed to board at the hotel provided that he, defendant, kept away?—He was not aware of the fact.

The Magistrate said that he did not think defendant had sufficient reason for being on the premises, and pointed out that if they were going to get the crockery the other brothers should have been with him when he was in the passage. He said difendant had no right to be there, and that some of his family were always hanging around the hotels.. Defendant was convicted and fined £2, with court costs 7s.

PLANTED BEER

James Collins was charged by the police with being illegally on the premises of the Family Hotel on the 29(h August. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Constable O’Donoghue stated that on the night in question, when on duty in Main Street, he noticed uc-. cased come out of the Family Hotel at about 7.30 p.m., and walk across the road to his wife and a man named Prew, who were standing on the footpath on the opposite side of the road. He handed Prew a bottle. When accosted, he denied handing the bottle to Prew and having come out of the hotel.

Constable Owen gave corroborative evidence, but' was not able to swear positively as to the man being defendant, as lie had not seen him before, but to the best of his belief the defendant was the man he had seen.

James Collins stated that lie had been whitebaiting during the day with his friend, Prew. He had had several drinks during the day, and had bought, two bottles of beer, which he planted in the afternoon, in an old tank at- the side of the hotel. He Went down town that evening with his wife, and met Prew and procured the bottles to give to Prew to take to the boat. He denied having been in the hotel when accosted. Defendant extended an invitation to the Magistrate to inspect the aforesaid tank wherein the sequestered amber liquor was planted. The tank was right alongside the hotel, and anyone coming from it at night might easily be mistaken as coming from the hotel. The Magistrate said he would give defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed the case, but warned him that he had better not be seen hanging round the hotel after hours again. APPLICATION FOR PROHIBITION ORDER.. “HONOUR AT STAKE.”

The police made application for a prohibition order against Henry Prew. When asked if he was in favour of the order, defendant became loquacious, and gave the Magistrate to understand that he was very much against it. Constable O’Donoghue stated that on September 14th, defendant’s wife

complained to.him that defendant had been drinking to excess, and had been knocking her about. Defendant had b<?en hanging round the hotels for the last two months. Defendant denied this, ‘and produced a" letter from his employers to say that he had been at work. Constable Owen said that he had had a telephone ring from Prow’s' employers, who were in favour of an order being taken out against him, and who had tried to persuade defendant to take one out.

In evidence, he stated that defendant had been drinking to excess. Defendant’s wife had been to him, and had told him that if defendant did not alter his ways she would be compelled to leave him. Defendant was always fairly quiet, but was hardly ever sober. Defendant persistently interrupted, alleging that “his honour was at stake.”

Defendant said lie had served four years with the Overseas Forces. He had been back two years, and had not had a conviction against him. He had had *an order taken out against him eight years ago. He admitted he was a heavy drinker. He asked for an adjournment of one hour, in order to produce his wife, who would prove that she did not want an order taken out. He again appealed to the Magistrate that no slur should be cast upon his honour. The Magistrate granted the order.

MAINTENANCE ORDER

Henry Whitlow was charged with failing to maintain his wife and her six children.

Mr Bergin appeared for plaintiff. Mary Whitlow stated that she lived at Moutoa. She had not lived with her husband since 1919. Since l hen she had received only £2O from him, and her daughter £5. One boy, aged 14, was working. Henry Whitlow said he sent the money constantly enough. He could not remember what he sent in 1919. He said he had sent his wife £2O this yertr, and l\i.s daughter £5. He was a sailor, and was away most of the lime. He dre,w £ls 10s Od a month when at sea. He was out of work a t present. Defendant was ordered to pay £2 a week, the first payment to be made mi 28th October. CIVIL CASES.

Judgment was entered up for the plaintiff in the following undefended

civil cases

V. McDowell v. A. Morgan, adjourned till October 28th; .\. Oliver v. Sid. Smith, plaintiff by default, £4 19s 9d, costs £1 4s Gd; S. M. Burnett v. A. Huff, £ll 18s Od, plaintiff by default, costs £2'l4s Od; P. Spelmau v. \V. C. Healey, £l3 19s Od, plaintiff by default, for rent and possession on or before 14th October, costs £2 14s Od; Woodroofe Bros. v. P. S. Baldwin, adjourned. Foxton Co-op. v. M. O’Reilly, £2, plaintiff by default, costs £1 3s Gd; William Huzzeff v. W. S. Free, £2OO, plaintiff by default, costs £9; J. O. Smith v. A. Oxenham, £6 8s Od, adjourned. Ilamuera Ilirini was charged with failing to register a dog over six months old. The Dog Registrar, Mr .). McKnight, stated that since the summons had been served defendant bad paid the registration fee. Defendant was ordered to pay the costs, amounting to 12s.