MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 545, 28 June 1909, Page 9

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

, t CBofore Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) - y'"' SLT GROq CASES. •'<• ' SENTENCE OF SIX WEEK'S IMPRISON- _' -' ' MINT. Reserved Judgment vu given by Mr. W. G. ' Riddell, .S.M., in the ease Police v. Jas. Barrie „ ; 'The,offence with whioh defendant was T • chiH'jtd was that on May, 15, being the ocou- , pier' if urjlisensed premises, to wit, the Para- ' gon Btaraingtouse, he iris privy to the salo ' of ijqttM-. He pleaded »t gnilty, and his connsel argued that before he could bo convicted it mnst be proved conclusively that he Was the occupier of the premises in such a way that if the landlord suwd fer rent he w.nld / ,be'found liable Counsel also argued that thero u , was no evidence to shew that ho naS privy " to the sale of llqu.r. In regard to the first ,' point, his Worship said that the Licensing Act t states that if thero are tw« or meie occupiers, > each occupier shall be liable There was no .. definition of occupier in the Licensing Act, so it'appeared that the w*rd "occupier" must be 1 loft to the particular circumstances of the case,'a"nd the Court must determine who tho occupier is. In the Municipal Corporations ,Aot*ant occupier is defined as the inhabitant .occupier of any property. In this paihoular case,-prier to 1J67, Barrie and' Mrs. Barrio wore the ]omt-loss»es of tho Paragon Boardinehonae, and after that date they continued I Irr occupation as man iand wife, and wore i doing so at tho tuno of the offence. There was 1 , no* written agreement of any subsequent al- *" . teAition, so tho assumption was that tho pai- "-. ties i were still liable, and the onus of dis'l ' proof was throun on defendants They did not 'prove "this, nor did they state exactly .. what the agreement was On the other hand, i thero was the evidence of tho agent foi tho | > ' owner of the premises, who 6aid that he con- } sidoTOd both Barrie and Mrs Borne ivoro ' liable" for the jent, which was paid sometimes . , *■ by one and sometimes by the other, though tho I •> receipts -were generally made out to Mrs Barrie.' Further, there was the fact that ' \ defendant was convicted in,. 1903 of being occomer, of the Paragon Boardmghouso, and being privy to the 6alo of liquor. This conviction ho did not appeal against No evi'deuce was, therefore,' given that there wj« any alteration in the relationship of the parties,' Barrie also exercised a certain authority „»in' the, house, by dismissing the witness Kitts and ordering another witness not to come near -' '. ' His Worship was satisfied that Barrie was a r'joitrfoccupier with' Mrs Borne .In regard > to ,the other question .as to whether defendant -'/ wasVpnvy to thecals of liquor, they had tho '. iworn statement of the 'witness Kitts that she , , obtained the liquor from Banie's bedroom.. ', la' addition, thero was the fact that a quan--<J Hty; of, liquor was"subsequently found in the "* room. One of the witnesses was also api preached by both Barrio and Mrs Barrie. ; His' Worship preferred the statements of tho - witness Kitts to those of both defendant and Bits. Jarna. - - < , Since this was def6ndant s second onence no .• rould bo convicted, and sentenced to six , • weeks' imprisonment. ' - ' Tn* second information ef being found on t unlicensed premises, whero liquor w t as seized, ~ - was withdrawn, i • * ' 'Station-Sergeant Darby conducted the prose- \ (" oution, and Mr. E>rdman defended. „ v - 'tC ' A MARKED'COIN.' ~ "'A.'- middle-aged man, "Chas. 1 Walter Bilby, J leaded not guilty to a ohargo of stealing, on uno 25, the sum of 25,, tho property of Henry V .Goodwin. V ' ' " 'The 'evidence called by, Station-Sorgeant Dafby 'for the prosecutron was to tho effeot 'that' Henry Goodwin, licensee of the Cambridge" Hotel, had suspected dishonesty in ,s . the oar,' and, therefore, laid a trap to catch ~' thfe'Jthief. He marled some coins, and placed < .them on the shelf where/the bar money was i "" kept' One of tho coins, was subsequently missed , ' ana 'was found On aecused. , . ■ His .worship entered a conyiction and 'fins i '" of in default seven days' imprisonment. •'".WTLFTJL DISOBEDIENCE ON THE HIGH " ' ~, ' - ' (' A< seaman named, Pranois Clarke was charged , that.vbeing'fl duly-articled seaman on the s.s. Aotea,' ho was, while on the high seas, guilty /.'.?,-of .wilful disobedience of.the, lawful commands '. of°Arthur H.'Kirby, master of the said ship. * Evidence was colled by Mr Myers foi tho ' to show that defendant refused to • ' do necessary work on Sunday, and subsequently staged that he would do no moie work on board the ship if he woro logged for this offence ' ' Hm Worship entered a conviction and fine of',J25 l and costs JBI 6a. in Cotirt, ' 6tated bis intention of refusing to pay the fine/ and said that if sent back to the ship ,"- > ha would bo a passenger, and do no work. A , second information of continuous disobedience was»witbdrawn., ; DISMISSED, i '. A charge of false pretences, based on the giving of a valueless cheque (which was returned marked "insufficient funds"), ,wa» dismissed. His' Worship said that although defendant had acted carelessly and foohsbly, ho could scarcely » found guilty of tho offence. J?rom tho evidence, it seemed to his Worship that defendant was expecting funds from Homo ' ,/ . , INSOBRIETY. "" i For" insobriety, two first offenders were con- ., victed and discharged, and another, who failed . to put in an appearance, was fined the amount . of his bail, 20s, in default, 21 hours in gaol, 1 John Turner, an old man with several previous t •convictions against his name, Was convicted 'and'ordered to pay 17s-. 6d. expenses, in dei fault, seven days' imprisonment. . ' ' '': CIVIL BUSINESS. <\ CLAIM'FOB DAMAGES. ' i Further argument was heard in the case Joseph Woolfo v Aaron Samuel and\Geo. Wm. Gtay (trading - as the Wholesale Woollen Co) and Fleming Ross, receiver, a claim for JilGl daiaag'M for alleged breach of content Mr, s Johnetod appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Wil'fo'r'd "for'defendants His' Worship reserved • _ judgment .