S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, 3 February 1922, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

OTAKI—THURSDAY. (Before J, Logan Stout, Esq., S.M.) Wandering Stock. T, Swensson (ranger) v. Whare Gilbert. —Charge of allowing stock to wander. Mr Atmorc appeared for the Borough ranger. Swensson, sworn, stated that he impounded defendant’s horse which lie found wandering.—Fined 5s and Court costs 7s, it being pointed out that this was Gilbert’s first offeree. <■ Same v. C. O’Rourke. —Similar charge. No appearance of defendant. Fined 5s and costs. Same v. F. Higgott.—Similar charge. Defendant pleaded guilty. Fined 5.s aud costs. Police v. T. Parata (Mr Staveley)— Similar charge. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable Satherley stated that Dr. Sharp ran into defendant's horse some time ago when his motor-eyclo was badly smashed and the doctor seriously injured. ' James Padden stated that ho remembered the accident iu September last at Waikanae. He saw the doctor collide with the horse, the property of defendant. Dr. Sharp stated that 011 the 'day in question he ran into three horses, and had since seen them being worked on Parata's property by defendant. lie recognised one horse in particular as Parata is. Defendant stated the horses got out through visitors leaving my gates open, and that the horse run into by the doctor was not his.—Convicted aud fined 5s and costs. Driving Without Lights. Police v. A. Gunsou —Charge of driving a vehicle at night without lights. Defendant pleaded guilty.—Fined 10s and costs. Breach and Licensing Act.

Police v. T. Walsh —Charge of supplying liquor to a female Native. Defendant pleaded not guilty. On a second charge ho pleaded guilty, and made au explanation saying he had no intention of making a breach. At this stage the two women (Cootes and Cook; charged with aiding aud abetting were called to give evidence, although the S.M. did not consider them liable to prosecution. Mrs Cook stated she went to the hotel aud. got beer from • the licensee, Alice Cootes paying for all liquor procured. Alice Cootes admitted going to the hotel and buying the liquor with money given her by a third person. On huf way home the constable took a bottle of beer from her. Constable Satherley stated that on the 24th January he .saw the women with beer which he took from them. They told him they secured the liquor from the Central. Mr Walsh, on being questioned, admitted supplying the liquor and had given all help possible to assit him (the constabje). The two women were heavy drinkers, and drinking among women was increasing. The charges against the women were withdrawn. One charge against Walsh was dismissed, and on the other ho was lined £5 and costs. The constable said he had known Mr Walsh had since turned down many applicants for drink. Police v. Hakopo Uikamati (Mr Atmore) —Charge of being on licensed premises contrary to Statute. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Constable Satherley stated there was a second charge, and to this the accused also pleaded not guilty. The Constable stated that on New Year’s Day he saw the offender go into the Jubilee yard with a jar, and on being questioned said he had been asked to take a jar back. Later he saw him enter the Family hotel yard, and on being questioned sifid he was taking a jar back. The said he had no

right there. To Mr Atmore: I first saw the accused going into the side-gate of the Jubilee; he was carrying the jar and I asked him what he had, and told him be had no right to go into the hotel with the jar. I told him it was an offence to get the jar filled, but defendant said he was taking it back for Mr Webby. On the second occasion he saw him near the Central Hotel and warned him. Later he saw him enter the back of the Family Hotel. Mr Atmore said the defendant was told to get rid of the jar and did so, and that there was no evidence to show he tried to get liquor, or even enter licensed premises.

Defendant stated that he came dows the road with a jar, and was at the hotel gate when the constable asked him v.hat he had. He said he had a jar, and the constable told him to get rid of it. He "took it to the back of the hotel, and left it there. Ho saw no no one there, and did not get liquor. On the second occasion he went along Mill Road, and as he had a second jar the constable advised him to get rid of it. He did so by leaving it at the back of the Family Hotelt. Defendant further stated that he and Wera Pohio went along to the Family, and wheaasked if it was the same jar he said “no, it was a different jar.” He did not place the jar on the back door step, and did not call out to the lieeneees's wife to get it filled. Fined £2 and costs on each case. Police v. R. King-t-Charge' of being on licensed premises contrary to Statute. No appearance of defendant. Constable Satherley stated he found defendant at the Railway Hotel, and the licensee Is wife ’ bn being questioned stated she did not know he was there, and said be had no right to be there.— Fined £2 and costs 7s, Adulterated Milk. Pohre v. John Robinson (Mr Atmore) —Charge of selling an article of food, to wit, milk, containing water (two charges). Defendant .pleaded

guilty. Inspector Reed stated that samples of -milk showed 12 per cent of added water. Mr Atmore stated that there were factors in mitigation, and that it was common knowledge that there was no' inducement to add water. Fined £lO and costs 32s fid. The second charge was withdrawn. Obsence Language. Matiu to Homers v. Bishop Hawea— Charge of using obsence language in a public place. There was no appearance of prosecutor and the case was therefore struck out. Illegal Fishing. P. W. Wilson (ranger) v. Joe Avrc— Charge that he did fish for trout without a license. Defendant pleaded gull*F- i y/. Ranger Wilson stated that Ayre \va» fishing on December 19th in the Otaki river, and when questioned said he had a license, lie asked him to produce it, but it was not forthcoming. Fined 40s and costs. Judgment Summonses. W. H. Nash (Mr Atmore) v. A. I£. Peterson, claim £39 fis fid. Defendant said under the circumstances he could not pay anything at present. He had a boot repair shop at Waikanae, but was not earning enough to pay his board. He previously worked at the game farm at Paraparaumu.—No order. Dr. Sharp (Mr Atmore) v. F. C. Wilson —Claim £fi Ms fid. Defendant stated that the money was due for medical attendance. For the past two months ho had done no work, and was living with friends. lie had earned no money since last Court day; he had been unable to work.—No order. t Claim for Rates. Otaki Borough Council (Mr Atmore) v. William Cootes. —Claim £2 Is Bd. Mr Atmore said the Council had been handicapped by Native rates being unpaid, and of £OOO owing most of it was due by Maoris. The place was not progressing, chiefly due to Natives, and he asked His Worship to give os much assistance as possible.

Cootes said he did not owe the rates, aud asked to make an explanation. This request was refused.

Defendant said he was not the owner of the section, but the S.M. said he could not discuss the matter. Cootes said Mr Davies had promised to with, draw the case, aud he* held a receipt for rates paid.—Adjourned. Same v. Geo. Cootes, claim £2 19s B<L Defendant admitted owing the amount, but said at present he was not, working. —Offer of £1 per month accepted, first payment to be on March 2nd. Same v. Fred Cootes, claim £4 0s lud. Defendant did not appear, but it war stated he had paid part of arrears owing.—Payment to be made within two months.

Same v. S. Cootes, claim £5 4s Id. To be paid within two months.

Same v. Geo. Moses, claim £l3. Defendant admitted owing the money, and also that he owned two acres of land. Chinese paid him £8 per acre per year; he was married, but his wife had no land. He did not think he could pay 0s per %veek.—Order made to pay PI per month, iu default 14 day’s imprisonment. * Same v. Utiku Hupeta, claim £0 Is fid—Order made for payment within two mouths. A Manakau Case. Howard Andrew (Mr Atmore) v. Manahi Hiakai (Mr Staveley). Defendant said the major portion ol the claim was admitted and that there were only one or two items in dispute. After plaintiff hath explained the accounts in dispute, aud Maaahi had asked for explanations, the S.M. gave judgment for the amount claimed with costs. Civil. Judgment by default was given in the following cases; Eleanor Hamilton Moore v. Hohepa te Kooti, claim £34 19s fid and costs; Ayre Bios. v. A. H. Doyle, claim. £1 3s fid and costs. On this case 10s was paid into Court.