POLICE COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 223, 18 September 1915, Page 4

POLICE COURT.

(Before Mr. F. V. Frazer, S_Vt.y DRUNKENNESS. A first offender forfeited bail. Susannah Hearle (31), for getting drunk when prohibited, was fined 20/- and 8/6 expenses. James Wm. Wynne (42), for committing a nuisance when he was drunk, was prohibited and fined 20/-, in default three days. GAVE THE CHAUFFEUR "A BEAST." Harold Walter Paricer (27) ad-nitted that last night he used obscene language in Queen Street. Senior-Sergeant Rutledge stated that about 10.15 p.m. yesterday Parker wbn to a taxi-driver, and endeavoured to eels an overcoat to him, but the joy-ride pilot declined to do business. Parker and a mate then went and sold the coat elsewhere, and they sub.eriuently returned to the taxi stand, where Parker indulged in abusive language at the expense of the man who had declined to buy tiie coat. Parker,,«-as- fiped ; lp/-. L and 6/- costs. FEET DOWNHEARTED. Lucy Maekie (53). who had done it three times, and ignored the moral restrictions of a prohibition order, stated that she was the victim of circumstances. She lived in the country, but came to town to see the Maori Contingent away, and, as it was a day of 6port, and site had met friends, she felt down-hearted, and had to have a drink. '/She's been uown-hearted three ti___ this last month." remarked the Senior* Sergeai.t. Defendant was fined £3, in default fourteen days, and advised not to fret any more about the Maoris. THE VARIABLE TIDE-LISE. Wm. MeKenzie Thompson, master of the scow Kiatia, sought, with tape measurements, grade computations, and tide calculations, based on the Nautical Almanac figures, to combat a charge laid against him of having removed shingle from below high-water mark on Christiansen's beach at Matakana, without a permit from the Marine Department. Inspector Bennett based the prosecution on measurements taken of _ac d_* tance from a poliutakawa on the beach at which the shingle wa6 removed, in* of subsequent measurements of the ensuing tide on the beach at 6 o'clock, holuil. that a "6 o'clock tide was a mean tide, and marked the boundary of the Crown's interest in the beach. He also mentioned that the ensuing tide sivept tbe hole left by defendant's shingle operations. Defendant's calcufations were directed to show that the rule-of*humb method of determining a "mean tide" by **<*■ surement at G o'clock was inaccurate, and that the sweeping of the shingle holt* was occasioned by the "'wash" ox "ian_* of the water over a levelled surface beyond the break of the actual lin« ™ high-water mark. It was this wash, occasioned by the swell and the wealier. that made the sea-weed line a false guide of high-water mark, he contended. H» also brought evidence to show that rt was the custom of scow-masters to tnsH lan allowance for the wash of the tid-i basing their judgment on the line of the sea-weed aud their previous knowledge of the rise of the tide at U various beaches. The royalty for tM shingle had been fixed by the owner « the beach above high-water mark before he had started the"work of removal A check by the Court of the captions offered' in evidence showed tut "mean tide" at that beach was practic- . ally the same by the ti o'clock tide calculation as by a computation based oa the Xautieal Almanac figures; also tha*. allowing for a 7ft. tide range on we beach at the spot in question, d efeM» n ' • had removed shingle at about Bft. M' 0 ™ . high-water mark." His Worship statM that he did not think the offence_a deliberate one, but defendant had obvioiisj made an error of judgment in ca.cal ing high-water mark from the Hue sea-weed. He would be fined £5 and « 9/- costs.