Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

S.M. COURT.

* OTAKI—THURSDAY. (Before J. L. Stout, Esq. S.M.) Breaches of Licensing Laws. Maneel Knocks, Dave Cootes and Jack Bell were charged with being on licensed premises contrary to statute. There was no appearance of defendants Bell and Knocks, who wrote pleading guilty. Mr StaVeley appeared for defendant Cooties. Constable Satherley stated he found the three defendants on the hotol premises. Knocks was under the influence of liquor and said he had engaged a bed, while the licensee said he had ordered them out. Mr Satherley said Cootes did not deny the charge—he went into tho hotel at the request of the other two. He had no drink there. Each was fined £1 and costs. 11s. Stock on Roads. In the following cases, all at tho instance of the county ranger (Mr Goo. Watson), defendants wore convicted and lined for allowing stock to wander on the roads: —Arthur Thomson, fined IDs, costs 17s Gd; Walter Collier, fined 10s, costs 17s; James Adams, lined os, costs 7s; llunora Power, lined 10s, costs 7s; Edward Webby, fined os, costs 7k. Assault Charges. A family quarrel, involving five charges of assault, occupied a very lengthy hearing. William Cootes proceeded against Claude Pike, Mick Guldens and William Giddeus for this alleged offence, while similar charges were preferred against William Cootes by Louise Giddeus and Edith Pike. M r SStuveloy appeared for Cootes. and Mr , Atmoro for Mesdames Giddens and Pike. The five cases were heard together, all the defendants pleading nut guilty. After a great many witnesses were hoard at leuglh, the S.M. said he considered that AV, Cootes was guilty of striking Mrs Giddens, and ho would lie fined -10 s iu each case, with Ji3 3s costs. The cases brought forward by Cootes were dismissed. Details ot the ease will appear iu our next issue, being crowded out. Maintenance Case. Emily Beatrice Mangham (Mr Afcmore) v. Leonard Mangham, claim £3l 10s for maintenance. Mr Atmore said defendant had paid £l2 only, was in a position to pay, especially as he spent a deal of money on motoring racing, , benzine, etc. Defendant was sentenced to two mouths’ imprisonment, to be released on payment of arrears.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OTMAIL19200702.2.6

Bibliographic details

Otaki Mail, Volume XXVIII, 2 July 1920, Page 2

Word Count
362

S.M. COURT. Otaki Mail, Volume XXVIII, 2 July 1920, Page 2

S.M. COURT. Otaki Mail, Volume XXVIII, 2 July 1920, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert