MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Shannon News, 12 February 1929, Page 4

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

OTAKI—THURSDAY.

(Before Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M,) Breach of Licensing Laws.

Police v. Phoebe McGill.—Charge of being other than the licensee did supply liquor after hours. —No appearance of defendant, but the licensee pleaded guilty on her behalf. Police v. John McGill (1) being the licensee did sell liquor contrary to law; (2) did expose liquor for sale. — Defendant pleaded guilty to both charges. King and Wilson were charged with being on licensed premises after hours. Constable Satherley stated that Constable Carran had visited the hotel, found the slide up, and two men — Wilson and King—with liquor. The hotel, said the constable, had been splendidly conducted for years past. The S.M. inflicted a fine of £5 and costs 10s in the first case, and £1 and costs 10s on the licensee. King and Wilson, who did not appear, were each fined £2 and costs 10s. Crossing the Line. Police v. F. L. Howell. —Charged that he did at Paraparauinu pass over the railway crossing when the line was not clear.—Defendant pleaded guilty by letter. Constable Satherley stated that defendant had informed him that he did not notice the train and was sorry for the accident. His caT was only slightly damaged. Fined £2 and costs 12s. Breach of Probation Order.

Police v. Gordon Maddoelc, breach of probation order in that he failed to pay £lO, value of a bicycle stolen. Maddock pleaded guilty. Constable Satherley stated that xvladdock had been plaeed on probation for three years on account of a recent theft cafee. He had paid nothing so far on the cycle, but had paid in the case of the theft of goods from Allan and Co. 's with the exception of a few shillings. Maddock said he had done his best to q>ay off his liabilities. The constable said he had warned Maddock about the company he was keeping, but he paid no heed. He felt sure Maddock could make good if he desired; he was a good worker if he liked.

The S.M. varied the order, and ordered Maddock to pay £2 per month, first payment to be on 7th next month.

Reckless Riding,

Police v. Francis Picard.—Charge that he did drive a motor-cycle at a speed dangerous to the public. No appearance of defendant. The constable said this was a very bad case. Defendant, at time of the offence, was travelling at 60 miles an hour and went 100 yards before he could pull up. The speed limit was 15 m.p.h. in the town.

Fined £2, costs 12s. Police v. Harold O'Hanlon.—Charged that he did ride a bicycle at night without a light. Defendant pleaded guilty by letter. The constable stated this was. defendant’s second offence. Fined 10s and costs 12s. No Lights.

Lawrence Housiaux. —Change that he did ride a bicycle at night without a light; (2) did ride a bicycle without suitable reflector; (3) did ride a bicycle without a bell or other warning device. No appearance of defendant. Fined 5s and costs 10s oh each charge. Police v. Pat Power. —-Did ride a bicycle at night without a light; (2) did ride, a bicycle without a bell or other warning device. —No appearance of defendant. Fined 5s and costs 10s. Dangerous Speed.

Otaki Borough Council (Mr. Thomson) v. W. Cootes.—Did ride a motorcycle at a speed dangerous to the public. —No appearance of defendant who pleaded guilty by letter. Mr. Thomson stated that the speed defendant travelled was considered dangerous, and in this he was supported by Inspector Furse who said Cootes was travelling at about 45 to 50 m.p.h. He also saw Groves. He tried to get them to stop.' Otaki Borough Council v. Ray Groves. —Did ride a motor-cycle at a speed dangerous to the public. Groves pleaded guilty by letter. Inspector Furse said many complaints had been made about Groves being a fast driver'. Each fined £2 and costs ■ 12s, solicitor’s fee 10s 6d on each charge. On Licensed Premises. Police v. Wharirere Waaka, charge of being on licensed premises after hours. —No appearance of defendant. Constable Satherley deposed to seeing defendant come from the back of an hotel on two occasions. The man had proved a nuisance to various licensees that night. Fined £2 and costs 12s.

Police v. Puna Taipua, charged with being- on licensed premises after hours. —No appearance of defendant. Constable Carran deposed to seeing defendant at the rear door of an hotel. Defendant admitted being on the premises for the purpose of getting whisky. Fined £2 and costs 128. Civil. W. H. Moon and Co. v. Wera Pohio, claim £8 7s 7d.—Judgment by default, costs 32s 6d. Cook and Nilsson v. G. Craven, claim £4 2s 3d. —Judgment by default, costs 23s 6d. A. E. Minton v. E. Harrison, claim £2 19s 6d. —Judgment by default, costs £1 18s. A. E. Minton v. G-. Craven, claim 12s 9d. —Judgment by default, costs Bs. Henry Maxwell v. Thomas Hughes, claim £4O 5s 6d. —Judgment by default, costs £4 6s. ; State Advances v. Joe Grant, claim £l7 18s 6d.—Judgment by default and costs. W. J. Barlow v. C. B. Cheer £9 12a. —

Judgment by default and costs. D. S. Milne v. Geo. Gordon, claim £3 Ss —Judgment by default, costs 23s 6d. W. C. Fiebig v. W. Blaclcmore, claim £8 8s 4d.^—Judgment bv default, costs 24s 6d.