MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14111, 2 August 1911, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mi* H. W. Bishop, S.M.) DRCXKEXNESS. 2 Three first offenders wer-. each fined os, in default 21 hours' imprisonment. George Houston Gowie. for being drunk while in charge of a horse and cart, was fined 20s and costs, in default seven days' imprisonment. On a charge of furious driving he was convicted. VAGRANCY. Wil'iam Irwin Blade (Mr Weston) was charged with being a rogue and vagabond, in that he had insufficient lawful means of sunport. Mr Weston asked for leniency on the ground of Black's ill-health, and that hia brother had offered to provide a home for him. Accused was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. THEFT. William Ward and Francina Ward wero charged that on or about July 4th at Yaldhurst they stole a fur necklet, a black dress, an underskirt, a gentleman's watch chain, a pair of scales, and a tusk brooch, of a total value of £0, the property of Thomas Russell. The male accused, in answer to a question as to what excuse ho had, remarked that he had no excuse except drink. Each of the accused was given three months' hard labour. BREACH OF PROHIBITION ORDER. Edward Burley, for a breach of a prohibition order, was fined 10s, in default 48 hours' imprisonment. MAINTENANCE CASE. No order was made in the adjourned case against John Twist, of failins to maintain an inmate- of an industrial school. ILLEGAL PRINTING. Tho Magistrate gave his decision in the adjourned case of the Police v. Alexander Wildey dSlr Cassidy), in which defendant was charged with having printed a document containing a notification on behalf of a person of certain horso races to be run. The evidence showed that defendant printed a card giving a bookmaker's odds regarding the Grand National Steeplechase, tho Grand National Hurdles, and tho Winter Can. Mr Cassidv. at the hearing of tho enso, cited the case of Barnett v. Bishop, known as the " 'Daylight' Case," tho Court, on that occasion, having luM that it was not illegal to print racing information unless some person or club was mentioned in the publication. The card that Wildey printed did not contain the name of the person for whom it was printed. In giving his decision tho Magistrate said that the present case war, clearly distinguishable from the ease of Barnett v. Bishop, and he intended to convict defendant. He understood that the Inspector of Police, in his capacity of Justice of tho Peace, had demanded tho production of a duplicate cony of the card, a printer being bound by law to keep'sueh duplicate copy of everything he printed. Why was it not produee<l on demand? Mr Cassidy replied that he did not know. Ho had no information on that romt. The Magistrate: "Very well. Defendant is fined £10 ana costs."