MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 April 1921, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING.A sitting of the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday morning, before Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M. Rheinfold Gredig was charged with allowing cattle to be at large on the Manutahi Road. Defendant, in pleading guilty, explained that someone, evidently as a practical jpke, had opened the gate, and thus the stock had wandered on the road. In inflicting a fine of 10s with costs 17s Gd, the Magistrate remarked that it was a pity the real culprit could not be discovered. \ John Jury, who did not appear, was fined 10s and costs 17s 6d for allowing a horse to be at large on the Franklev Road. J ALLEGED SUNDAY TRADING. Shields Plum tree, Thomas Roberts, James Nesbit Mouat, Arthur Hopkinsort, and Arthur Walsh were charged with being on licensed premises (viz., the Terminus Hotel), on Sunday,. April; 17, at a time when these premises were required by law to be closed. The case against Plumtree was taken separately, as it was understood that he had nothing to do,with the other party. Mr. R. Quilliam appeared for the defence. Senior-Sergeant McCrorie deposed that on Sunday last, when accompanied by Constable Parkinson, lie saw a man go in the front door of the Terminus Hotel. He decided to go round along the Esplanade, and when near the gateway from the yard of the hotel, five men appeared, coming from the back way of the hotel, though he was not sure if they came from the door or not. They were moving hurriedly, and the licejjsee was just behind them, but when he saw the police he turned back. The police had a clear view of.St. Aubyn Street just previous to going on the Esplanade. Plumtree came towards the police. He smelt of liquor. When questioned he stated that he had not been in the hotel, but had been to the convenience. The licensee was later seen in front of the hotel, and, when asked what the men were doing on the premises, said he had not seen them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Quilliam, witness said that Plumtree did nut actually say that he had come from St. Aubyn Street, but the other four men did. Mr. Quilliam submitted that Plumtree had gone from the Esplanade to the convenience and back again. Constable L. G. Parkinson corroborated the senior sergeant’s account. Mr. Quilliam said that Plumtree lived at Fitzroy, and on Sunday last strolled into town, arrivip<» .ibout 11 o’clock, collected his mail at the private lobby, and walked down to the- Esplanade to wait for the 12.15 car for Fitzro'y, as the cars do not run during church hours. Whilst there he had occasion to use the convenience, and, when walking back towards the Esplanade, the other four men joined him. They all then walked into the arms of the police. When the sergeant suggested that Plumtree smelt of whisky the defendant laughed, for he had not drunk, whisky for many years. •

Defendant, gave evidence as to the facts outlined by Mr. Quilliam.

The Magistrate decided to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, as he had offered an explanation of his action in being on licensed premises, and the case against him was dismissed. OTTIER MEN FINED. The cases against the other four men were then taken. Senior-Sergeant McCrorie again gave evidence. He denied that, when asked what they were doing on licensed premises, the men replied that they had come from St. Aubyn Street’to use the convenience. They simply stated that they had come through from St. Aubyn Street.

Mr. Quilliam said that Hopkinson and Walsh were partners in a plumbing business, and Roberts assisted them with the electrical work. On the Sunday morning in question the three men had decided to meet at their shop in order to straighten up their books. Walsh, however, did not keep the appointment, hut, when Hopkinson and Roberts had finished and were strolling along Queen Street, they met Walsh, who joined them. The three continued their walk alopg St. Aubyn Street to Hill’s store, and then returned. When near the hotel they decided to make use of the public convenience, and here they met Mouat. Mouat, it was explained, had been on the Esplanade quite an hour and had not seen the other three previously that day. All four then strolled through the hotel yard to the gate leading on to the Esplanade, where they caught up to Plumtree, who had evidently been standing at the gate for a minute or two. Here they were accosted by the police. When asked what they were doing on licensed premises they explained that they had come in from St. Aubyn Street to use the convenience, and had then decided to come on to the Esplanade. Each defendant went into the witness box and corroborated counsel’s story. The Magistrate said that it appeared that the four defendants did not make a full explanatujji of their actions when accosted by fhepolice. They would each be fined £1 with costs.