S.M. Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7912, 19 September 1904, Page 5

S.M. Court.

, (Before' 3fr A;'1 D. Th'bmson, ■■•SiM):'. '■' . MAINTENANCE. -^Z::'' In the case of A. Smith (Mr Mo ore); a claim for the. maintenance of an illegitimate child, the S.M. made an order for payment of in full settlement of the case. ,A sum of .£4O cash is to be paid at once and ; an order v/asohade for the payment of the balance, J&O, in one month. •Mr .Fitzherbert appeared on behalf of the complainant.. ."•-.■'■■ . '

ALLEGEDINDECENTLANGUAGE. Geo. York (Mr Ihnes), pleaded not. guilty to a charge of using indecent language on Saturday, 10th inst., in the Square. " .' ' ' After hearing the evidence the case was dismissed. '. .• ■ ' . ' BOROUGH BYEILAWS. John Jones (Mr Mowlom) pleaded not guilty to a charge of driving an un-licensed-'express in the Borough. Mr Fitzherbert appeared for the Inspector j of Vehicles, Mr Knowles.

The informant, Henry Knowles, said the express complained of had been registered last year but not during the present. He producedlhis register book' in; support of his statement. ■ •

- The.;defence was that, the 'express was used on the day in question but not for hire. It -; was being used, for carting debris ■ away from a destroyed house in pursuance of a contract and not under ordinary hiring circumstances. Counsel for the defence contended that to constitute the offence . complained of the express had to be used for hire under ordinary circumstances. • _ Evidence in' support of the contentions of counsel was given by the defendant, who, in corroboration of bis case, placed in evidence the contract under which he was working for the' removal of "the debris already referred to.

.Counsel addressed the Court on the legal points involved in the difference between plying for hire and being hired to carrying out contract work.

The S.M. said. it was a case of not plying "for hire but carrying goods for hire and although there was a definite contract defendant was carrying «oods for hire. By-law 9S showed that all carrying of goods, for payment, in carts was covered, or intended to be covered, by the by-laws. The defendant was convicted, but as the S.M. considered he may have thought he was entitled to act under contract iu this kind, a fine of 5s only wasimposedwith- costs. !.■ • .;. .- -■•;>.■ - TOOL AT EONGOTEA;- >'

Edward Pratt (Mr'Moore) pleaded not guilty to a charge of keeping his billiard room, at Eongotea, open after hours on September 3rd, and E. Jarvis, Samuel Taz, W. Sproi, J. West, F. Burgess, and L. Jones were charged with being on the premises after hours.

Sergeant Stagpoole prosecuted. Constable Gleeson, stationed at Eongotea, gave evidence that he had gone to the billiard room on the 3rd inst. at 11.40 p.m. The shop door was closed, but when witness went into the billiard room he saw the young men mentioned in the room. They were playing, pool and stopped when-, the defendant spoke to them, after witness entered the room. Witness took their names and they dispersed. ■

Mr Moore submitted the billiard room was closed according to the Act. There was nothing, he said, to prevent the occupier of the room permitting his friends to play a friendly game of billiai-ds, without payment. In order to prove that it was a public billiard room, the police had to prove not only that it was open to the public, but that a charge was made for the .games played. there. , Evidence, to. that effect, counsel contended, was wanting- " •-,•', ' ■:•■. :- ■ - .;••■ .■ -r

.: ,The^ S.M'. >said : he did not.. think ? he: could'limit' the' word "close " to ■"the .construction placed upon it, by counsel. He did not think it was sufficient to have the outer door closed so long as.the room was open for the purposes of playing. He thought, a breach of the Act had'been committed and fined Pratt 20s and costs and the other accused as and costs. ALLEGED LARCENY.

Thomas O'Connor pleaded not guilty to a charge of the" larceny of a silver watch valued at <£20, the property of Peter Scheldt, of Bunnythorpe, at Palinerston on September 3rd, 1908. Sergt. Stagpoole prosecuted. The informant, /in evidence, stated there was a gold chain and Kruger sovereign attached, to the. watch. He quoted the number of the latter from particulars in.his possession, the figpres agreeing with;those on the watch. On the day and night in question witness said he had been under the influence of liquor. He slept in Pahnerston that night and missed his watch next day. ' ; Thomas Leicester, canvasser, Auckland, said he was .in Palnierston' on March 10th, 1904, At the latter end of April witness met accused in the Family. Hotel.-: He asked witness for nioney;and received l()s^ the watch being given by accused .as -security, for, the;loan... Next morning" witness, gave accused" another ss. . The watch produced" was the one witness received from accused. On the following day again, Tuesday, witness gave accused 19s 6d. >

:■'. During cross-examination of witness, accused/-said witness knew perfectly well where; the watch was got'from and that, her. (witness) had:showii accused a '■'point "r. in/getting away to Auckland with'iti i'^:.r;;- : ~.,.-■'■■'.

(■:} l)etecti^e' : 'Bish6p gave,evidence as to' a.cpnyersation he had with O'Connor jnWanganm^The^latter':was.' ''toKKthat Leicester' ; had;'paVirned the "watch -in Aucklandja'nd itCcLbeen arrested. When arres.tedsDeic6ster^s;aid he' got the watch froni him ;(Q^eonnbr)- In reply accused told witness : fliat he knew;. Leicester and had not. given"hini the watch atanv time. Although. Leicester had the watch hedidnot:stealiitl The thief was still in Palmer'stb'n. ' The watch was vised at the- quick-step competittdn -in Palmerston. and the man who used it got it fi'om-the thief, v. -...:.. ■■". ■'. . ;. P:

-,'■ Actmg-detective-lje Norvilie .'said that in- conversatioii :^ith-him vac'cused;haci said he did.nbt steal'the watch.! - '^ V: i Replying."tb ■■.accused.Witness ■ saidfihat ■ ;he;"had.asked all the'officials:^^ engaged, at the quickstep competition, and they did not Know what watches they used. Accused, in: answer to the Court^ said he could account for possession of the watch, but he did not like to do so. Still he saw no reason why he should go to gaolior another;. The man from whom he got the watch wairriamed -——— ;

■ The S.M.—."T'will adjojirri the. case till after lunch, and in the meantime you can decide whatto do. ' x ' . . :•■'

'On"resuming after--luncli- ;ttie person accused 'by O'Connor of having given him the . watcli was produced •by the police. '■; Addressing.'- the Court Sergeant : Stagpoole'saicl-that the man "mentioned

hj;, O'Qbnnoi. denied absolutely' aJiv" knowledge iof, the .watch. 'i,.-M\- ..,..:,; V^.i;, - -At the1. H-MA. suggestion:, the acctisect :- ■aml.;the: person :..in.entidnea-"'byr hihi': were!>, f allowed' to -confer.' ' ' "■'', '■".'■! "■N; v:/-

;; '.to:, Court the accused - ■saidbehadgcit-tho watch ■ from the:per-'' son he indicated, and;he thought the latter would admit it, but he denied the '■ accusation; ' ■ Giving evidence ,on oath,accused sjleged that he had got the watch from - a young man nained. Meyriek, and sai&-:----a pe>son named '■" Cosgi-6ve.' could pre-vb . it.' ■ ', ■"'-.. ~-.■-.. •.•-■.■, ■ . - . ■ ■

Asked m . cross-examinatibri :• why ho had-not mentioned Meyrick before/ accused could not give any satisfactory explanation beyond saying that he had' intended to keep the information for theCourt proceedings. •': '• -■ <:r . , Accused called Leonard Meyrick", who stated on oath that he did not sell the watch and chain to. accused, neither ha* he ever had the watch and chain'in h'r<'' possession. . , • : ;:

Accused asked for a remand till ho could obtain Cosgrove who, he said; could prove the transaction between' ho and Meyrick. ' . ' .. ■

The request was refused, the S.M. remarking that accused had had every opportunity afforded him of proving his ease.. A sentence, of six months hard labour was imposed^