MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVII, Issue 53, 2 July 1915, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

TO-DAY'S SITTING. His Worship. W. G. Kenrick, Ksq., K.M.. presided at the sitting this morning. The lobby was filled by a large numor of the public, whose curiosity had been aroused by the sly-grog case. The Court was further arrayed bv the exposition of a large number of whisky bottles ranging from "Cattos" to genial "Johnnie Walker."

CIVIL BUSINESS

T. A. Lonergan (Mr P. Thomson) v. .1. A. Fernandez. There was no apparance of defendant, and judgment by default was entered for £2 10s and 10s costs.

Ralph and Archer (Mr Macalisterj v. C. J. Leathern (Mr Stanford). Mr Macalister applied for an order for payment of judgment for £"2B 13s 3d, Tbe order was granted for payment forthwith, default being seven days'

imprisonment, the warrant to be suspended until August 1.

DEFENCE CASES

Two cases for obstructing parades were called. Defence Department v. Robert Thompson. - Defendant was (charged with obstructing a parade at Te Wera. Lieutenant Gray, appearing for the Department, asked that the charge be withdrawn, on condition defendant paid costs, as defendant had apologised to him and had been accepted for service with the Expeditionary Force. His Worship, in allowing the case to be withdrawn, remarked that he did so as defendant had volunteered for the front, but at the same time he advised,defendant to be more careful. If he' had spent his time by assisting in parades instead of interfering he would get on better when he does go to camp. Many good men who were ready to go to the front in times of peace would not bother about training. The best preparation for war was to train in time of peace.

Defence Department v. Sharrock. Defendant pleaded guilty. Lieutenant Gray pointed out that defendant, who was a cheeky lad. who, when spoken to always replied in insolent terms. Warnings were no good and therefore proceedings had been instituted. When told of the proceedings he had stated that he would sooner clear out of tlie country than pay the fine. Jn answer to His Worship, defendant said he was 17 years of age and had passed the (sth standard. He was earning £1 a week from Mr Clem Smith, stablekeeper. The Police stated that defendant did nothing but hang around stables smoking cigarettes. Lieutenant Gray pointed out that, defendant had offered no apology. The only apology he was capable of giving was cheek. The Magistrate severely admonished the defendant, and pointed out that the only useful punishment would be a good' birching. Unfortunately the Act did not provide for this and the most he could do was to impose a line of £l.

SLY-CROC. David Shepherd Maxwell, of Taurakawa. was charged on four informations with selling liquor without having a license to do so on June 18. Sergeant Dale prosecuted and Mr K. Spence appeared For defendant. Sergeant Dale, in opening said the informations had been laid under section 19-1 of the Licensing Act. The attention of the police had been called to the case by a row which occured on the Taurak.awa Road work, in which one man had been injured. Constable Scannell visited the camp of the workmen and found empty whiskv bottles about. The men made statements to the Constable that Maxwell sold them the whisky. Constable Scannell reported the matter and on June 28tb a search was made, under warrant, of Maxwell's premises. The liquor produced in Court was found on the premises except two Lotties which were found in defendant's bed in his hut. further clown the road. Defendant had a large piece of land and at the tune had a sub-contract for road-work. He supplied the workmen with stores. The case was a very bad one as defendant was not .satisfied with selling the liquor. He was in the habit of visiting the men's camp and after supplying the liquor he would gamble with the men. This had been going on for over twelve months. The police had always difficulty in sly-grog cases in getting evidence but in this case the men had been so badly treated that they had voluntaril'v assisted the police. The defendant bought whisky at £2 14s W a case of twelve bottles and .sold it for 10s per bottle. Mr Spence entered a plea of guilty, and asked for leniency, as defendant had never been previously convicted of the offence, and had merely yielded to the temptation offered by the workers' desire for liquor. Defendant was Vntirely respectable, and bad not hampered the police in their case. He was a struggling settler, and any punishment would be sufficient. His business lead him to begin by being hospitable, but his hospitality had led to the temptation to which he yielded..

His Worship, in giving judgment, said it appeared that defendant had i„ no way meant to be hospitable, but kept the liquor merely for purposes of profit. Thorn was very great difficulty in proving these cases, as those who bought the liquor would not come forward and give evidence that would enable a prosecution. This case was a very had one for which there was no excuse nor any reason for excuse. On the first charge he would impose a fine of £SO with costs 9s, and witnesses' expenses tl 7s 3d. On the three remaining charges a fine of €1 with costs of 7s, 9s, and 0s respectively.

and witnesses' expenses of £1 7s 3d in each case. In imposing the fines, the [Magistrate pointed out that if evidence had been tendered to show that defendant had sold liquor on different dates he would have imposed a term of imprisonment. • » «uf a" i LEGISLATURE ACT. Registrar of Electors (Mr P .Thomson) v. .lames Patterson (Mr RSpence).Defendant was charged on two informations with attesting the signatures of two persons to claims for enrolment without havi-ijr seen the jclaimants sign the forms. Defendant pleaded guilty.

Mr Thomson said that defendant bad committed a technical breach of the Act. but it was in no way suggested that he bad acted dishonestly. His action was different from that of a political canvasser. He had acted to oblige the informants and unwittingly committed an offence.

Mr ft. Spence, for defendant, said that defendant pleaded guilty. He had unwittingly committed the offence, but had not acted in any dis-

honest way. The offence was in practice, committed daily, and was purely a technical breach.v

The Magistrate said that he always distinguished between cases vsimliar to the present one and those of political agents canvassing for votes and enrolment. Defendant had merely acted to oblige' the informants, and there was no intention to act dishonestly. |At the same time, an offence of this description sometimes had serious consequences as the recent elections petitions showed. In view of the circumstances, he would impose a fine of £3 in the first case with costs 9s, in the second case £1 and costs 9s. Counsels' fee of £1 Is was allowed for both cases.