S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, 5 April 1922, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

OTAKI—THIS DAY. (Before J. Logan Stout, Esq., S.M.) Application for Prohibition Order. A. King was charged with being on licensed premises, to wit the Railway Hotel, contrary to Statute. Application was also made for a prohibition order. King objected to the application, and stated that the constable had overstepped the mark by stating he was always drunk when in town. For being on licensed premises King was fined £2 and costs. On the application for a prohibition order the S.M. gave King another chance. Breach of Licensing Act.

Several young men were charged with being illegally on licensed premises contrary to Statute. There was no appearance of defendants. Constable Satherley said he went to the hotel shortly before midnight, and found most of the men under the iufluence of liquor, and it was appaient they hud been having a spree. The licensee said he knew nothing of the matter, ho having retired to bed. Ferguson, Knox aud Bowden were each lined £2 and costs, and Araputa, Uansby and Taipua £1 aud costs, the latter three being first offenders. Breach of Firearms' Act. Waller Jepson was charged on tho information of the police with selling a firearm without having a permit. There was no appearance of defendant.

Constable Satherley gave evidence that Collier had bought the firearm from Jepson. and added that both Jepson and Collier hud pleaded ignorance of the Act.

Basil Collier was charged with purchasing a firearm without having obtained a permit to do SO. Jepsen and Collier were lined 40s and costs each.

The S.M. pointed out that the charge was a serious one, but evidently tho act was committed on account of ignorance of the law, therefore he took n lenient view of tho matter.

W. H. Potts was charged with having an unregistered firearm in his possession.—No appearance of defendant who was fined £2 and costs 7s.

Constable Satherley said defendant had also pleaded ignorance of the Act. William Easthope. Charles L. Freeman, John W. Lewis and Reg. Ryder were also charged with being in posession of unregistered firearms. Thov were fined £2 and costs each.

ABeged Breach of By-Laws. Hutt County Couxcil (Mr Hislop) v. 17. Doyle—Chargo of driving a motorlorry, weighing over three tons, over the Paekakariki Hill contrary to tho Council's by-laws. Defendant pleaded not guilty.—Case adjourned pending written legal argument being submitted. W. J. Close •wns similarly charged. It w«i admitted that the lorry tra* driven over the hill. Counsel for defendant submitted the bylaws were unreasonable and ultra vires, and stated that £8 had to be paid each time the lorry went over the bill The by-law did not say what would happen if the load exceeded five tons. There were only two route? over which lorries tould go into Wellington, viz., via Himutaka and Paekakariki. The by-law was most unrea«onable because thepenalty was prohibitive, and it went further than was necessary, prudent, or convenient. Tho by-law affected the public at large and also affected two adjacent County Councils. Legal written agreement was also submitted, and the case was adjourned for consideration by the S.M, Judgment Summons, Emily Bland (Mr Harper) v. P. Jenkins—Claim £l4 7s 6d. Defendant said he was a married men with seven children, and had done no work since Christum-. He had been working for Mr White at £4 per week, not found, aad had to pay rent. Ordered to pay 21 per month, In default 14 days' imprisonment. 8olioi» tor'* fees, £1 I*, were allowed.

Eent and Possession. M. Hobbs (Mr Staveley) v. Wong Winterburn. claim £6 8s for rent, sjad possession of tenement. —The S.M. said Hobbs was entitled to the houte under the nev.- Act and therefore gave judgment for the rent asd ordered Wintwrburn to gire po«*esgion withio on* month. Claim tor Hers*. Turu Haraihona (Mr Harper) v. Hamiora Epiha.—Claim £7 2s 6d for horse hire. Defendant contended the amount charged was excessive. Plaintiff stated that he owned a horse and hired it to defendant at 25s per week, which amount defendant agreed to pay. He did net agree to pay to? wards shoeing and feeding the horse. Defendant had the horse for 6J weeks, end used it for contract work for the Borough Council. The turn of. 25s was a reasonable charge.

Defendant stated that he made £l4 during the tiiae that he had the horse, esd that he agreed to fay Turn £5. He bad already paid £l. He had to deduct 14s for shoeing the horse tad £1 2s 6d for chaff, and £1 t» lor osts.-ge had agreed* to give Turn half what he earned on the contract after expenses were paid. Judgment was given for the amount claimed, the- S.3flH a horse was charge. Court costs £l, translation ss, and solicitor's fees £1 08, were allowed.