MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2348, 29 October 1921, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

MONTHLY SITTING

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

Walter Walker was charged with being absent from a parade held in Foxton on the 22nd September. Sergeant-Major Peare gave evidence that on the evening of the a-bove-mentioned date defendant was absent, but he had been a regular attendant as a rule. Accused stated that he had come to town to attend the parade, but had found the drill hall was engaged for the evening. He could not ascertain where the drill was being held. Accused was convicted and fined

£l, witli costs 7s. William Retter, similarly charged, said that he had not had any notification to attend drill.

Sergeant-Major Peare said that when the parade hour was changed from afternoon, to evening a notice was published to that effect in the local paper, and instructing all cadets to attend at the time set.

Accused said lie was under the impression that he would receive a notice when to parade. Accused was convicted and fined £l, with 7s costs. Edward James Bowater, similarly charged, said that he had attended one parade night and found (hat there was no officer in charge, and the names of those present were taken by a senior member.

Sergeant-Major Peare said that on the night in question a-corporal had been instructed to take the parade, and had carried- out his duty. He had not seen accused at any pre-

vious parades. Accused was convicted and fined £l, with costs 7s. Henry McGregor was charged with failing to attend a parade on September 22nd.

Sergeant-Major Peare said that he had not seen the man before, and had received no excuse from him as to his absence.

Accused asked if any notices had been sent to him to instruct him to attend drill.

Sergeant-Major Peare said that several had been sent, and a notice had appeared in the local paper. Accused said he had not received any such notification, and if he had he would have attended drill. He did not read the paper. He knew all those who attended drill, but did not know he had to attend. He livqd across the river. He had attended previously when notified. The Sergeant-Major said he could not prove at the time that notices, had been sent to the accused.

The Magistrate said that under the circumstances he would have to> dismiss the cask

ABSENCE FROM SCHOOL.

George Irwin was charged with failing to send his son to school, and was convicted and fined ss, with costs 7s.

BREACH OF ARMS ACT

James Robertson, farmer, of Oroua Downs, was charged that on the 2nd March, 1921, he delivered out of bis possession a .22 repeater rifle, contrary to the Arms Act. Constable Owen stated that Robertson liad given a pea-rifle to Turner without first obtaining a permit to do so. James Robertson stated that the rifie was useless and he was going: to break it up, but bad given it toTurner on condition that be got it registered. Accused was convicted and fined 10s, with 7s costs. B. Turner, farmer, of Oroua Downs, was charged that on the 3rd March last he procured possession of a rifle without a permit. Constable Owen stated that Turner had come to him on the 22nd September, 1921, to register a shot gun and pea-ritle. On being asked, where lie had procured the rifle, accused said that he had bought it at the Manawatu Auctioneering Co., Palmerston North. On inquiry being made, it was found that this wasnot so. Turner later admitted where he got the rifle. Accused was convicted and fined £l, with 7s costs, fm the charge of having obtained a rifle without, a permit, and a. further conviction and fine of £1 and 7s costs tor failing lo register same within one month of date of possession, as required by the Arms Act. ILLEGALLY ON LICENSED ; PREMISES. Samuel Robinson was charged with being illegally on the licensed premises .of the Family Hotel on September 24th. Constable Owen stated that ort the date in question, at about 7.3 ff p.m., both Constable O’Donoghueand himself were in the Alain Street,, opposite the Family Hotel. Witness saw accused in the main entrance of the hotel, but as soon as he (accused) saw witness lie made a dash up the stairs. Witness caught accused on Die fire escape. Accused was convicted and fined £2, with costs 7s. Tom Elers was charged with being illegally on the licensed premises of the Family Hotel on October 23rd." Constable Owen said that at about 7.30 o’clock on the morning of the 23rd he saw defendant come out of the Family Hotel. When questioned, accused said that he was not well, and had gone in to get a beer. Accused was convicted and fined £2, with costs 12s. . G. Robinson was charged withbeing illegally on the licensed premises of the Family Hotel on October 23rd. Constable Owen said that at a-

bout 4 o’clock oh Sunday last he saw accused come out, return, and then come out again from the premises of the Family Hotel. AVhen accosted, accused said he went in for a “booze,” but there Was'“nothing doing.” was convicted and lined £45, with 7s costs. George Mitchell was charged with being illegally on the licensed premises of the Family Hotel on the* 23rd October. Accused proclaimed his innocence. Constable O’Donoghue said that at 8.25 a.m. on Sunday last he saw accused come out of the back door of the Family Hotel. At 8.45 a.m. he again saw him come out. When accosted /an hour later, accused said that he had gone into the hotel to see the licensee about a chimney he wanted fixing up. Accused lived about two chains from the hotel. Constable Owen corroborated Constable O’Donoghue’s evidence, and further stated that when accused came out of the hotel he appeared to be counting something in his hand.

Accused denied this. He said that he went to see the licensee about a chimney that was in need of repair, and about fixing up a grate for him. He wasn’t there five minutes. Anyhow, what did he want a drink for after a “beautiful breakfast”? How it all happened he then explained in detail. Later he met a “pal,” who asked him to come and have a drink, but instead they had a look at the river. A little later Constable Owen accosted him, and told him he ' would have to answer some questions to the Magistrate at the next sitting of the Court. He regarded this as a joke. A few days later lie received a “beautiful bit of blue paper.” This was outrageous. He did not have any money on him on the morning in question, so could not be counting any. At this point lie produced “a character” from the Prime Minister of New ftouth W ales. He was going to have his say / there and then, even if it cost him a month in prison. Some people thought a person was no good just because “lie played the concertina and bad a drink now and again. He had never been in a Court before. When speaking with the licensee, he had regarded the matter as a joke, and he requested that the licensee be produced as a witness as to his innocence. The licensee was communicated with, but refused to give evidence. The Magistrate said that, evidently the licensee did not regard the matter as joke enough to conic along, and convicted and fined accused £2, with 7s costs. Accused finally remarked: “Anyhow, I’m an Englishman!” BREACHES OF PROHIBITION ORDERS.

Henry Prow was charged with breaking his prohibition order. Constable Owen said that he met accused at the back of the Family Hotel one' afternoon, and advised him not to go in. He went away, but later was seen coming from the back of the hotel. Accused was convicted and fined £l. with costs 7s. Hans Peter Jacobsen was charged with the breach of a prohibition order.

Constable Owen said that he found a man supplying defendant with beer. / Accused was convicted and fined £l, with costs 7s. James Kennedy was charged with a breach of a prohibition order. 1 Constable Owen said that on the 21st October he saw defendant and another may talking outside the Family Hotel. After a while the other man left defendant, and * shortly afterwards returned and handed him a bottle of beer. Accused wa_s convicted and fined £l, with costs 7s. SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO PROHIBITED MAN. James Aitcheson was charged with supplying liquor to Hans Peter Jacobsen, a prohibited man. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable Owen stated that on Saturday last he saw defendant and Jacobsen talking outside the Family Hotel. Later he saw defendant hand Jacobsen a bottle of beer. When accosted, Jacobsen had two bottles of beer in his possession. Aitcheson denied having supplied the beer to him, but later admitted having given it to him. When asked he said he did not know that Jacobsen had an order out against him. Defendant asked witness if be . (defendant) made any attempt to hide the beer .when handing .it .to Jacobsen. Witness said be did not, but be was satisfied defendant could see neither he (witness) nor Constable O’Donoghue at the time. Defendant said he would “take a solemn oath on a stack of Bibles” that he supplied one bottle only to Jacobsen. Jacobsen had asked him to get him a bottle of beer, and he had been “the ‘melon’” and had "“fallen.” He said he made it a rule to mind his own business. Magistrate: Evidently you broke your rule in this case. Defendant said that he had just obliged the man. He did not know the man intimately. Accused was convicted and fined £2, with costs 7s. The Magistrate, in inflicting the fine, said that accused should have known the man had an order out. The names of men prohibited are put up in all hotels. ALLEGED UNRULY BEHAVIOUR.

Hans Peter Jacobsen was charset! that he used insulting words to Anna Charlotta Lundquist, on the Ist October. Mr Bergin appeared for accused, yho pleaded Aot guilty, K *

Anna Charlotta Lundquist, resident of Union Street ,said that she lived not far from Jacobsen. On Ist October she was outside her gate, when Jacobsen came along. She was at the time going to town with her little girl. Jacobsen stopped her and said, “You will have to leave my wife alone.” She did not speak at first, but later told Jacobsen to keep his cows away from her place. Jacobsen* then used obscene and insulting language. Her boy, who was on the hill a little way off, heard this, and ran and called his father. Jacobsen then went on with the cows, and later returned. By this time Mr and Mrs Fryer were present, and her husband and son. Jacobsen again insulted her in front of all of them. Slie did nothing to provoke him. She had previously told Mrs Jacobsen to keep the cows out of her place. She had thrown a stick at one cow that put its head through the fence. Mr Fryer had said to her husband that if Jacobsen had said what he did to his wife he would have “smacked him over the face.”

K. Lundquist, husband of the previous witness gave corroborative evidence. Jacobsen also used insulting language to witness. Witness’ wife had laid an information last year about Jacobsen’s cows being on his (witness’) property. Walter Ernest Richards, school boy, said he told Jacobsen that it was he. (witness) who had driven the cows out of Lundquist’s. He did not hear Jacobsen use insulting language. Constable Owen said that when he visited the boy he would make no statement, as his guardian (Fryer) had told him to say nothing about the matter.

Paul Lundquisj;, schoolboy, corroborated his partnes’ evidence. Mr Bergin said that defendant denied having used the language complained of. The whole trouble was a family feud. The Magistrate pointed out that defendant was not charged with using obscene language, which would have made him liable to twelve months’ imprisonment, but with making a statement which was liable to cause a breach of the peace. Hans Jacobsen said that his wife asked him to get the cows on the afternoon in question, and if he saw Mrs Lundquist, to tell her to leave her alone, as whenever she went past Lundquist’s, missiles were thrown at her. He met Mrs Lundquist, and quietly asked her why she threw sticks at his wife. He then went on, and when he came back several people were waiting for him, and Mrs Lundquist said his cows had been in her garden. He called her a liar, and as he went away Lundquist had called out something about him (witness) being a thief, and something about watering his milk.

John Fryer said that Mrs Lundquist came to his gate, and he told her to settle her own affairs. He did not hear any bad language. Tt seemed a mixture of languages to him.

The Magistrate said that it was rather a pity that people in this case presumably of the same nationality, could not live peaceably together. A stop would have to be put to this sort of thing if it continued, but under the circumstances lie would have to dismiss the case. CIVIL CASES. Judgment was entered up for the plaintiff in the following civil undefended cases: — McDowell v. A. Morgan, £3 Is 7d, costs £1 3s fid; Wallace and Co. v. L. Bradcock, £l3, costs £2 14s Od. JUDGMENTS. Follas v. Elers, ordered to pay £5 15s 9d within 14 days, in default 14 days’ imprisonment with hard labour.

Murphy v. Poutahi (Charlie Martin), ordered to pay £4 11s Od, in default seven days’ with hard labour. J. O. Smith v. A. Oxenham, ordered to pay £7 3s Od, in default seven days’ hard labour.