ELTHAM.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 November 1921, Page 6

ELTHAM.

MAGISTRATE’S COURT. A LENGTHY SITTING. (From Our Own Correspondent.) Eltham, Nov. 1. Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., presided at •a sitting of the Magistrate’s Court here to-day. Frederick J. Muir, charged with engaging in heavy traffic without being licensed to do so, was fined £2 and 7s costs. Frederick Henry Morgan, charged with failing to send his son to school, was fined £2 and 7s costs. CHARGE OF FORGERY DISMISSED. Frank O’Keefe (Mr. Crump) was charged with altering the entry in a Post Office Savings book, thereby committing forgery. Sergeant Henry, who prosecuted, said that accused had an account of £3OO 5s at the Post Office Savings Bank. The sum of £205 was- drawn by accused, and when later an amount of £6 10s was placed in the bank a clerk noticed that an x alteration had been made to the book. Clarence Kershaw Holt, postmaster at Eltham, stated that his attention had been called by a clerk to an alteration which had been made in the savings bank book. Later the wife of the accused called and made an explanation in connection with the alteration. Later O’Keefe himself called and said that he had altered the amount of withdrawal from £205 to £2OO, in order to blind his wife as to the amount withdrawn. He said that he did not intend to defraud the department, and that later he intended to make good the alteration by inserting the amount erased. Arthur Richard Wallis, postal clerk, gave evidence that he had given accused a cheque for £2OO and five £1 notes when he made application for withdrawal of that amount. Qn Septem-' ber 10 the accused’s pass book was again presented for a deposit of £o 10s. After making the entry he noticed that the pass book had been altered, the words ‘‘two hundred” and the figures “205” to “200.” He impounded the pass book. Francis Henry Townsend, police constable, stated that on October 5 he bad interviewed the accused, who gave him a statement in reference to the alteration in his Post Office Savings Bank book. The statement was that on September 7 he drew £205 out of "his savings bank deposit. At the post office? on the same day he rubbed out the ords •’ami five” in the book with a piece of blotting paper, and also made the figures “205” into “200.” He want ed the £5 to pay off a loan to the War Relief Association in Stratford which he had contracted before being married. He did not wartt his wife to know that he owed the sum. He intended to alter the figures again to the correct amount and did not intend to “beat” the department.

Mr. Crump submitted that there was no case. It was provided that there must be the intention that the document must be acted upon as being -genuine, and there was no evidence of this. The magistrate said that the question which he had to decide was. whether there had been a primae facie case made out by the prosecution. The accused had done a very foolish thing. lie had made an alteration which made a document false. He knew it to be false but he did it to keep out of some sort of trouble with his wife. It did not appear that there had been any intention to induce anyone to act upon the document as genuine. It would be a waste of public money to send accused for trial, so he would be discharged accordingly. The magistrate concluded: “At the same time 1 think I should say that the accused has done a very foolish and stupid act, and doubtless the post office authorities will take steps in the matter.” CIVIL CASES. Judgment for plaintiff by default was given in the following cases: . State Advances Superintendent v. Myrtle D. Pennington, £8 3s Sd, costs 15s; Thomas Olli ver and Thomas v. J. Hodge, £7 12s (£1 19s 6d); Joseph Taylor v. ■Lewis John Rowe, £54 5s 7d ( £4 14s (kl) ; Ira J. Bridger v. George King, £2 ;10s ( £1 5s 6d) ; Cecil C. Stanners v. George Hobbs, £44 6s (£3 ss); Ira J. Bridger v. James Neale, £4 16s (£1 10s 6d); H. C. Stanners v. L. F. Harrison, £2O 19s 6d (£2 8s). Orders were made in the following judgment summons cases: Cyril L. Wilson v. John H. Graham, £4 0s 6d, to be paid forthwith, in default seven days’ imprisonment; A. E. Smalley and Co., £5 2s lOd, to be paid within fourteen days, in default five days’ imprisonment. LICENSING CASE. Judgment was delivered in the two cases of breaches of the Licensing Act in which Ernest Crabtree, licensee of the Coronation Hotel, Eltham, was

charged with keeping his premises open after hours, selling liquor after hours, and supplying liquor to a youth apparently under the age of 21; while Alexander Telfer, barman, employed by Crabtree, was charged with selling liquor after hours, anck supplying liquor to a youth apparently under the age of 21 years. Dealing with the charges against Teller. the magistrate said that defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge of selling after hours, and he oould not see anything whatever in favor of the defendant. His own story disclosed absolute callous indifference to his responsibility, and the magistrate could see no excuse whatever for him. A fine of

£lO and 7s costs was imposed. On the charge of supplying liquor to a youth apparently under 21 years of age, it appeared to be probable that the defendant was mistaken by the circumstances. The sale had been made to a youth who had frequently been in the hotel with other persons, about whose age there could be no doubt, and any reasonaoie person might take him to he over the age of 21 by his appearance. The defendant would certainly have been more circumspective in his dealings had he made inquiries, but it could not be held as a fact that the youth was apparently under 21 years of age. The information on this charge was dismissed. Dealing with the charges against Crabtree, the magistrate dismissed the information in the charges of opening his premises for the sale of liquor after hours, and of supplying liquor to a person who was apparently under the ag’ of 21. In connection with the charge of selling liquor after hours, the miw-

istrate said that Telfer was employed as a barman by the defendant on the date of the sale, and defendant stated in his evidence that Telfer had authority to sell liquor during the time the house was open, but was instructed not sell after 6 p.m. Defendant was himself absent from the hotel when the sale was made. Telfer stated that he was looking for' the other barman, but lie knew where the other barman was likely to be, because both were livinig on the same premises. The other barman was in bed, and Telfer was standing in the doorway of the hotel when approached. With the licensee away and the other barman in bed Telfer was ostensibly the person to whom a boarder or any other person would apply for liquor. The court held that Telfer, in supplying the liquor, was acting under the scope o-f his employment. Defendant would be convicted.

Mr. A. Stewart (instructed by Mr. Quilliam), who appeared for defendant, asked that the penalty inflicted should be over £5 to allow of an appeal. A fine of £lO anfl costs was imposed, security for appeal being fixed at £lO 40s,