RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume III, Issue 112, 31 January 1880, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TnvngiViY, Jasca^t 28, 1880. [Bpforo the Resilient Magistrate] BKKAOn OF THE PTJBMCAN'a HOUSE MANAGBMBNT ACT, 1879. Arehihald Dykus wasi charged-, upon the information of Constable GHllespie, with a a breach of tlio Provincial Ordinance m serving John Ihlo with drink upon-Chri.st-in a Bay. There was another ca9o, and m, reference to- the seconl information,' Mr. Staite, who appeared fct the. defendant, complained of the action of tho police. charge had Keen b'ron^fc against hj& client some time ago, whiuh had been dismissed upon a tet'hniial poip.t of hivr', nn<l then as n kind of aftorthjouiiht i> second one, v(m hroujjlit to light. ' Qertivin^y. if two. separate oiTem-es had heort committed, it did seem odd that' th»y sho^itf n^( ,fmY<a(;hee!ii"liid together, ijiste;vt o{ vfaMiiogt MKJf *.b# &k\ hud) been. disnnsß^.-- 1 -''.:-^-./ ■ "■ . €fi««yie : Xvrewty cases might

have been brought &gains.t#JM^Bt|WJi n fr w fo r the game clay. Mr. Stajt c understood, ho^erer, , that, the Oowi va» about to dealwitXthe^sein^ which Jhle wiw concerned, and it might,' , perhaps, shorten the. proceeding? if|he we^e . freely, to ndrm> that, that person had beer^ supplied with drink upon the day. m question. He would be able to show that thY liquor, had been given him m friendship, h. it nothing had been paid fprjit j neither had it been hooked, , , "... Mr. Ward said that the information charged the defendant with serving liquor upon a day other t him a working day, and m- h.is opinion the case narrowed ...itself down to the question of law — Was Christmas a working day within the meaning of the Act. In looking, over, with regard to that point ho noticed that m the Provincial Ordinances of Taranaki, Nelson, and Auckland, the sale 6f> Ijauorwas prohibited upon Sundays, Christmas Days,and Good Fridays, and he .certainly held that hs the Wellington ,Qrdinnrice .did riot specially mention either of the two latter, they were not intended by the Government of that time to be m the same categ >ry as Sunday. They were 'only holidays, and if they were not specially enumerated it would be difficult to draw the line, as some might feel inclined to include any or every saints' day. . . .. ~... ... . Mr. Staite entirely . agreed with the opinion of the flench, and m.Ufh.t. draw attention to the fact that some' of the most religious persons m Palmerston had .no scruplo m working npon Christmas Day. '•_ The Bench then decided fthat there had, been no infringement ofj.the Ordinance, and that hotel-keepers were not compelled by law to. close their premises. They were, perfectly at liberty to consult their own feelings m the matter. Constable G-illespie : What about Good Frid.-.y, your Worship, Can they keep op. n upon tas day also £ .. . . . Mr. WaH : They can plea.stf themselves about it. The law does not say that they shall not. P'nder the circumstances, therefore, the Police decided to withdraw, the second, prosecution. ' . . ''.' B.REACH OF THB MCENBIKO ACT, 1874. The same defendant was then, charged with selling two glasses of beer to Edward Collins, on the Palmerston Racecourse, on the twenty-second instant, without having a special permit for the occasion. Mr. Staite appeared m defence, and stated that if aq- offence, had really be^en. committed, it was not wjlfqlly, done, but through ignorance. He handed m a permit which had been received by Mr. Dykes I from the Resident Magistrate for. the, 361h [of December. Qn account of the extreme I inclemency of the weather, th.fi Sparts had to be postponed, from that daj until the 22nd, the day upon which the alleged offence was said to have. been, committed, and Mr. D.vkes naturally believed that the | one aut hority was sufficient. „,. i The Bench took that view'of the rose— I although it endorsed the action of : Che | police— a,nd m flic tod the nominal penalty of ! five shillings and. costs, BBEACF OF IBS BOEOtTOH BYE-LAWS. . John Waklegrave wa.s informed against by Constable Gillespie for a breach of of the Borough Bye-laws, m allowing a horse to bo at large m the Public Square, on the2Qth mat. Mr Waldegrave informed the Court that he hnd a secure pad deck for his .horses, and as it appeared one of the panneta m the Square ha 9 been opan as a k\nd,. Qf.tra'p for wandering nnimnls, the Bench ignpr,e<i the heavier penalty for trespass on the 'Square,' and merely indicted the nominal fine fofthe horse being at large. ' ' DISOBEYING AN OBTkER OF TIIE COOTtT* • Francis Haines was informed against by his wife, Matilda Haine«, for neglecting an order under the Married Women's Property Protection Act. The defendant did not put m an appear-; ance, and nffcer hearing the evidence of the complaiuant, the Bench sentenced him to six months' imprisonment m Wangariui Gaol, and ordered a warrant to be issued for his arrest.