MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 508, 15 May 1909, Page 12

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr. W. G. Riddoll,B.M.) CONSORTING WITH THIEVES. "A man may be a wealthy person, but it b still illegal to oonsort with roputed thievee," remarked bis Worship after hearing tne evidence in a charge against Daniel Morria of habitually consorting'with reputed thieves. Morris denied the charge, and explainod that he had been working at Taihape. A senteno# of three months' imprisonment was iin> posed. ... ' A SERIES OF THEFTS. . A young man, namod Frank Joseph Kerw win, appeared on four separate. charges of theft as under:—(l) Stealing a length .of rubber hose, value'3os., from the back yard of the premises of Jas. Fairway; (2) stealing a tape measure, value 55,, from the shop of Edwin Ellis, second-hand dealer; (3) stealing a brace and bit', a screwdriver, and two chisels, valued at 10s. 6d., the property of thd Oarrara Ceiling Company; (4) stealing a quantity of carpenter's tools, value ii 10s., from Luke's Foundry. Accused pleaded guilty to each of tho charges. V _ , ' Sub-Inspector Phair informed tho Court that accused had sold the articles for £1 6s. (3d. »nd none of tho goods had been recovered. The young man had been out of work for some six months,; and ' apparently: had been living on the proceeds of His dishonesty. He had been convicted of theft previously. His Worship entered sontcnces of tliroo ... Months' imprisonment on each of the thre« first charges, the sontonces to run concurrently. On the fourth oharge.a sentence oI six months'. imprisonment was imposed. '"DESERVED NO CONSIDERATION." , "You ought to bo thoroughly weU ashamed of yourself being in the condition you ware. . . .. You deservo no consideration whatever." : Suoh was his Worship's opinion after hearing the evidence against Jonn Graham, ■ charged with having used indecent language. Evidence was given that a«Ußcd,i who bad .. been drinking, was beinfc assisted home at a lato hourj by nis wife, who had a ohild in , her arms, when ho used the language. His Wor> ', ship added that simply for the reason that a monetary penalty would'affect accused's wife , the fino would not bo as heavy as it otherwise would bo. Accused would be convicted and fined £3 and costs 175., in default; four, teen days' imprisonment. ': THE ROWDY TOWN HAIL MEETING, 1 As an outcome of o disturbance at the Town Hall during tho course of the publio meeting in reference- to compulsory military training, Geo. Ohristio was oharged'with having unlawfully . assaulted Wm.- -Donaldson King., Defendant pleaded not guilty to the olilrgo, and explained that whilst he was at the meeting a number of young men at tho back ,of him bad thrown, paper at him, and when he remonstrated they made offensive . remarks to him, When ho could. Bton'd tho' bohaviour no longer ho turned round on tho : young men. Evidence was also given that King had not thrown any paper, and that ha would have been struck on the face but for an intervening arm; As it was, tho blow, just'grazed hisiaoe. , ! ■ ■ •; His Worihip hold that defendant was guilty of assault/aiiid although he had provocation he shofljdj have. thati he hacks a remedy in an 'infoririation. fo'r a'breaoh of tba peace. Defendant would be. convictod : and fined 10s. ; ■ '. ■ -,'l; i : TWELVE MONTHS'. IMPRISONMENT. HenryFraser Marshall, remanded for sentence for theft of,a bicycle, tho property of Harold-Lyon, was senteilobd to six months' i imprisonment. Accused was further charged with the-th'eft of a cheque for £5, the'property of Herbert Mastorsi of .Otahnhu, and ploaded guilty, ' Chief; Detective Broborg : stated that the cheque, was taken out of Mr. Maßtcrs's further sentence, of- si* months' imprisonment was entered, the sen tences to''be;cumulative.:• ;v :; OTHER CASES.' V x ■ For allowing , stock to ; wander, ' : George Humphries' and Wa|laco M'Guire were each convicted, and fined 6s. and costs.l3s. . 1 Neil Smith was oonvictcd and fined £8 and oostsVlßs., in default 14' days', imprisonment, , for - haying unlawfully assaulted . one-Win. Fink. 1 •• • '■'•'• ■ ,! ■ ■ ■ . , Avison ; , and ■/:,Williams '■ were ..charged • .with'having, between January ! and_January 26, failed to keep a, wages and overtime boo* • as required by Section 68 of tho Conciliation and Arbitration Act.' Defendants. wcrfl : fined 205., : 'and oosts 7s. - ', '. _ , ■ -An information against George Earle and Allan-Earle; 1 father and son, charging them with having killed a hare out of season, wm. dismissed. Evidence showed that the hare ( was a young ono; and might have been mistaken for a rabbit. Mr. Gray appeared for . the Acclimatisation Society, and Mr. 0 Regan for defendants.' . _ Minnie Aldridgo convicted and sentenced to one month's imprisonment for im- ' portuning in Molesworth Street. . Basil: Gordon A, M'llwain • appeared on charge of theft of timber valued (at 65., the property of Frederick Hunt and John M'Donaid. A remand to Monday was granted. Bail . Was allowed in tho sum of £6 and one surety of £5., • THE 1 ISLAND BAY CESS-PIT. , . INFORMATION DISMISSED. . ' llesei'ved decision was given by Mr. Riddell' ui roferehce to the island Bay coss-pit case, iu which the Corporation prqeeeued' against Hamilton Gilmer ou a chargo that,': our March 27, " being , tho owner of unoccupied land, section 4JO, Islaud Bay, he permitted nightsoil to remain on the laiid-so as to bo daugerous to health, .'contrary.- w by-law 472 of the City Council. ' The oviaonco for tho infermaut showed that there was: an accumulation of- nightsoil in a covercu toss-pit on an unoccup.ua section belonging to delendant, that it had remainod iii that: condition lor sorao time, and was, according to medical testimony, dangerous to health. Tile evidcnco also showed that, whon defendant was requested to romovo it, ho did so promptly. Air. Skerrott contended that tho informant had not proved knowlcdgo ' ' on tho part of defendant, und that, on tlie authority of Somorset v. Wade, 189-1, ho could not bo convicted. The case cited camo under Section 13 of tho lmporial Licensing Act, 1872.' After dealing . with authorities, his ■ Worship thought informant must bring forward some cvideuco of knowledge. In lU'gina-v. Murdoch: it: was held that the word "permit" implied proscneo. and sanction. In tho present case 'defendant had ' not personally denied knowledge, but' tho facts that the cess-pit and drain lending to it/, were covered over, and the land unoccupied, that defendant did not reside near it, and' that, when his agent was iiotiiicd to remove the nuisance lie did so at once,, were, in his, opinion,' some cvidonco against tho presumption that defendant , knew tbat tho nightsoil was on his land, 5 and that it was dangerous to health. Under the by-law ) it was not an ofi'encc per so for all owner to permit such matter to remain on his land; it must , also bo. dangerous to health. The first, fact would bo apparent to any person inspcoting the land,' lint the second was an effect due to tho existence of tho first, and upon which there might bo a diversity of opinion'. On the ovidcncc, and on tho authorities, his .Worship considered that the in- \ formation .'must bo dismissed. Leave to appeal was granted; Mr. O'Slioa appeared for tho City Council, and Mr.' Skerrott, with him Mr. Blair, for defendant.