POLICE COURT

Southland Times, Issue 20081, 19 January 1927, Page 8

POLICE COURT

SITTING AT GORE.

(From Our Correspondent.) At a sitting af tJie Gore Police Court yesterday morning Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M., presided.

PROCURING LIQUOR.

David Reidy, pleaded guilty to a charge of procuring liquor during the currency of a prohibition order. He was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence when called upon and to pay 7/- costs.

SPEEDING,

Henry Albert Brownsey (Mr Bannerman) pleaded guilty to a charge of driving a motor car along Main street at a speed dangerous to the public. Sergeant Packer stated that it was an ordinary case of speeding. It was estimated that the car was travelling at not less than 40 miles an hour.

Mr Bannerman said that the defendant did not admit having travelled at anything like 40 miles an hour. There was very little traffic at the time.

Brownsey was convicted and fined 20/ with costs 7/-.

DOUBLE-BANKING.

For double-banking a passenger on his motor cycle Ronald Calder was convicted and finer! 10/-, with costs 7/-. He was also convicted and fined 20/-, with costs 7/for riding a motor cycle without a light.

CRUELTY TO A HORSE.

A BAD CASE

Sidney James Gibson (Mr Dolamore) pleaded guilty to a charge of cruelly beating and ill-treating a horse at Waikaka on November 21.

Mr Bannerman, represented the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, by whom the information was laid. Mr Bannerman stated that the defendant had ridden a hack from his employer’s farm across to Waikaka. When he returned to the farm it was found that the horse had been beaten with a stirrup iron and had been ridden to a standstill. It appeared also that Gibson had been jumping the horse over fences at another farm and had so knocked it about that it had eventually died. The horse had been examined by a veterinary surgeon, who had expressed the view that the horse had received internal injuries from the ill-treatment it had received. Counsel understood that at the time the defendant was under the influence of liquor, but was not so drunk as not to know what he was doing.

Mr Dolamore stated that Gibson when approached had frankly admitted having ill-treated the horee. Had Gibson been sober at the time it would have been difficult to say anything in his favour, but he was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing. His employer had stated that cruelty of this kind was quite foreign to Gibson as he was naturally kind to animals. The defendant had agreed to pay £l5 in compensation, and was genuinely sorry for what he had done.

The Magistrate stated that the case was a very bad one, but by inflicting a heavy fine he would be imposing hardship on others. Gibson was convicted and fined £5, with costs £2 9/-. An application for the suppression of the name was refused.

A LIQUOR CASE

QUESTION OF DELIVERY

George William McGregor, for whom Mr Aitken appeared, was charged with that “he, being a carrier, did bring liquor into Gore, a no-license area, on an order to R. T. McKay, and that he did not deliver it at the residence of the purchaser.” Sergeant Packer said that McGregor was a taxi-driver at Gore, and that on the date of the information he went to Mandeville, where he purchased one bottle of whisky and six bottles of ale on an order which was purported to be signed by one R. T. McKay. McGregor had brought, the liquor to Gore, and met McKay outside Tinnock’s fish shop, but McKay had considered the place as being too public, so the liquor was handed over at the gardens. On being interviewed m connection with the matter, McGregor had stated that he did not know where McKay was. He was given four days to find McKay and also to produce the order, but he had not done so. Although he had been given every opportunity to do

so, McGregor had not found McKay, and he had stuck to the same statement all through. Inquiries made had shown that a man named McKay had lived at the Southland Hotel on the date of the information, and further inquiries showed that R. T. McKay was shearing at Benin. Constable T. Matthews (Invercargill) and Constable J. Miller (Gore) both gave evidence relative to making inquiries for McKay.

Sergeant Packer said he had interviewed McGregor, who said he did not know that the regulations required that liquor was to be delivered to the purchaser, and he had asked what would happen if a man from Dunedin wanted liquor and where would it be delivered.

Mr Aitken for the defendant said the sergeant had not quite got all the facts. McKay was a relative of McGregor’s (a brother-in-law) and on the date of the information his residence at the time being was with McGregor, and the liquor was delivered there. The obligation was on the carrier, who must deliver the liquor at the residence of the purchaser, and as McGrgor’s residence was on the main road, on the return from Mandeville he left the liquor at his house. McGregor then went to the rank, where McKay came and asked him to go and get the bottle of whisky, and McGregor did so, finally handing it over at the gardens. Evidence to this effect was given by McGregor, and McKay said that the liquor was left at the residence of the first-named. The magistrate in summing up said it was just a question of whether McGregor, as he said, had delivered the liquor at his own residence or whether he had delivered it direct to McKay. If it was delivered at his own residence, then there was no offence under the section of the Act. The story first told to the sergeant was the correct one, in all probability, as the sergeant was not likely to make a mistake, and it apneared that the liquor was delivered to McKay direct. The case in itself did not appear to be a serious one, and McGregor would be convicted .and fined 10/-, with 7/- costs.