MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10014, 9 April 1910, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

? MASTERTON—FRIDAY. | (Before Mr 0. C. Graham, S.M.'i FAILING TO DESTROY RABBITS. Joe°Waaka, a native, was charged on the information of StocK Inspector Webb, with failing to destroy rabbits on his property. Informant stated that he had inspected the property on 15th December and hart sent a notice to the owner to lay poison. Had visited thp property again in January, and he found nothing had been done then. Some poison had been laid, since the information was served, but the country was still id a bad state. Corroborative evidence was given For the defence Mr fownall said defendant owned 500 acres of unfenced land. He used every effort to keep down the rabbits by means of poison. Defendant said he had 901bs good dry poison left over from last year. Informant said he was not to use the old poison, and he would send up 501bs of fresh poison, and a man to lay it. He objected to that, as he would have to pay the man, and said he would lay it himself. Had managed his grounJ 23 years, and he had laid SOlba of poi.on. Tne poison took well. His Worship said he was satisfied sufficient care had not been taken to keep down the rabbits. There was always the excuse of a tangi on the part of the natives, and they must! be compelled to comply with the law., A fine of 405,;7s cost and 5s translation fee was imposed. BREACH OF LICENSING ACT. JJ Edward Walton was charged with having given an order for liquor intended for the No-License area of Masterton,>ithout having given the name and address of the person for whom it was intended. Mr Pownall appeared for accused, and entered a plea of not guilty. Willie Burridge gave e\idence as to having sent the liquor to Neilsen's boardinghouse. Sergeant Miller, giving evidence, said that on the 18tb of last month he saw defendant at the Club Hotel, nd defendant admitted having signed an order for liquor which was intended for a man who was staying at Neilsen's. Mr Pownall said that the liquor should have been left at the Club Hotel, and that Burridge would have | been quite entitled to hold defendant —who had given his proper name and address— responsible for payment. Edward Walton, assistant cook at the Club Hotel, said he had a mate named Ade who was staying at Neilsen's. His mate asked nm to get the beer, which he did. He ordered it in his own name, and gave instructions that it be sent to the Club Hotel. He had nothing to do with its being sent to Neilsen's. His. Worship said he could only take the evidence of defendant himself, who distinctly said ne ordered the liquor for another person with the intention of evading the law. A fine of £lO and costs would be imposed. ALLEGED SALE OF LIQUOR. ° Thomas Ridgway was charged with selling liquor and also with keeping it for sale within the No-License area of-Masterton. Mr Lavery appeared for accused. Sergeant Miller stated he had - executed a search warrant on accused's premises, and had found * quantity of beer and whisky, one bag containing eighteen bottles of beer. Peter Hider said he had called at defendant's place on Saturday morning and asked for a bottle of beer, which was given him, and for which he paid 13 6d. There was also a man named Shaw there who received a bottle of beer, which witness didnot think he ia\& f«v i By Mr Lavery: Witness had bor-, lowed 2s from Mrs Ridgway two days' before. He Informed tne police ' that Ridgway had sold him the liquor. ! Willie Burridge, brewer, said he , bad been supplying Ridgway with beer. ■ ! Sergeant Miller gave evidence as to having searched accused' house on Saturday night. A bottle of whisky was discovered in a cupboard, five bottles of beer in bedroom, a bag contining five bottles of beer outside in the yard, two bottles of whisky in a trap [and another I

sack in the yard W|t > ei X iiir-a, bottles of beer in it. Accused stated he did not know whether the beer was r is or Shaw's, who, he alleged, sometimes came there for beer and sometimes brought some. Shaw, accused further alleged, had given an order for three dozen of beer. By Mr Lavery: Ridgway had not op. c »'« .-e rch in any way. Mr Lavery said these was no corroboration of the sale of the, bottle of beer to Hider, and con s tended that there was nothing to show that accused had kept the | liquor for sale. Thomas Ridgway said he came to live in Masterton about February last. He commenced gathering bottles, while his wife carried on a small business. He took the bottles to Burridge. Early in March he received a dozen of beer, and on March 20th two dozen. Shaw was an old friend of his and asked tor a dozen and a half of beer, which accused let him have, but did not receive payment for them. Witness had not received any money for drink, from Hider. He had not been paid Is 6d for a bottle of beer. Alex. Shaw gave evidence as to ordering three dozen of beer, and giving: the sane to Ridgway. He was backwards and forwards to ~arterton, Gladstone and other places, and always brought back a bottle of whisky every tia.e. Remembered Hider getting a glass at Kidgway's. No money passed he would swear. His mind was a blank as to other transactions. Could not say how many bottles he took away at a time. James Christie gave evidence as to being in Carterton with Ridgway. He brought back a bottle of whisky, and Ridgway had a bottle also. Left the bottle of whisky in the trap, and fetched it on the Monday. Alice Ridgway, wife of defendant, remembered Shaw being at their place. He came down for some beer he had ordered. He took some bottles of beer away. After hearing counsel His Worship said the circumstances in connection with the case were very suspicious, but it was not fully proven and he would dismiss the case. POLICE v. NEILSEN. Peter 'Neiisen was charged with keeping liquor for sale in a nolicense district. Mr Pownatl appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Millar stated a search warrant had resulted in finding some 18 bottles of beer, two bottles of whiskey, and a demijohn of beer, and five bottles of whiskey on the premises. Mr Pownall contended the charge must be confined to a fixed date. The Sergeant said as long as he was allowed to show how much liquor was taken to the house he did not object. His Worship ruled the charge must be confined to a given date, and the police made the date the day of the seizure. 2nd April. Willie Burridge gave evidence as i to orders sent in to Neilsen's since ; Ist January. Mr Pownall objected that Mrs Neil.-en had already beencharged with having all these quantities of beer on the premises for sale, and the case wa9 dismissed. He submitted she could not be charged twice with the same offence. H\a Worship told the Sergeant to ciniine himself t.> .he 9th March, and after. Witness then gave evidence as to the orders sent into Neilsen's since •-hat date. Sergeant Miller deposed that on the 2nd inst , about 9 o'clock, he entered Neilsen's boarding house, accompaned by Constable Townsend. He saw a man in the sitting room lying drunk, with his head in his hands. Went into another room a bedroom. Neiisen and two men were in the room. The stone jar produced, three parts full of beer, stood on the chest of drawers. Witness produced his warrant Neilesn said he brought the men in to shout for them. Mrs Neiisen was also there and produced two bottles of whiskey. Witness asked had they any more, and NeilJsen said "No such thing as asking questions." In another room witness found a box containing 18 bottes of beer. Found a case with five bottles of whiskey in it not opened. Mrs Neiisen said the beer and whiskey

"was onieied 1-y riuieieni noarjeis, i and ihe wfei&key had only come that day. The could not bay who brought it. That referred to the two bottles. , For the defence, counsel contended (hat it was not the amount of liquor that was ordered over a certain period that they should be callsd upon to answer. The proof of actual sale would be sufficient to show that liquor was kept for sale, but the quantity of liquor was no proof of sale. Ihey must be called upon to answer a specific charge of having liquor in their possession on a given date or sale. Evidence of boarders was given to show that bona fide orders for liquor had been given the orders delivered, in a fair and open manner for the use of boarders ordering it. lhe information was dismissed.